Irish Satellite

Elmo

What happened to Ireland's satellite spectrum as provided through international agreements. I cannot find anything on the internet about it. I know RTÉ was part of a consortium who want to have control of it, they where called WestSat.

The government gave the licence to Atlanic Satellite and Dennis O'Brein's Esat (Eireann Satellite) proposed a shopping channel on the new service broadcasting into Britian, it was supported for a time by Littlewoods before going under. It ran before Sky Movies on BskyB when it eventually launched.

Anyone know?

Apogee

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054988973&page=2

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=289876&page=2

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054872354&page=2

watty

WE sold it for a mess of potage to the Norwegians I think.

We are practically the only Industrialised Country with no slot.

@Apogee your posts are not very relevant.

The Cush

The following extract from Television in Europe (1992) Eli Noam mentions Westsat

Direct Satellite Broadcasting

After the collapse of the British DBS project Unisat in 1985, interest grew in an Irish DBS system that could broadcast programs to Britain and continental Europe. The government granted a license to Atlantic Satellites, a company founded by the Irish businessman James Stafford. The American firm Hughes Communications, owned by General Motors, won Irish governmental approval in 1986 to launch a DBS project and bought 80 percent of Atlantic Satellite ( Multichannel News, 1986, p. 17). The project was similar to the Luxembourg Coronet venture in which Hughes was comparably involved, and which failed after fierce French and general European PTT opposition.
A rival DBS consortium, WestSat, comprising the two national authorities, RTE (broadcast) and TE (telecommunications), as well as Irish commercial interests, was also formed. The government, however, rejected its application, because it did not want governmental organizations to enter into a high-risk DBS venture.

WestSat comprised RTE, Allied Irish Investment Bank,. Guinness Peat, and An Bord Telecom Eireann

Elmo

watty wrote: »

WE sold it for a mess of potage to the Norwegians I think.

We are practically the only Industrialised Country with no slot.

So did we licence the slots to Norway or did we sell them to Norway? Can we get them back?

Are we an Industrialised Country? <<< but that's another question for another thread

Also just to correct some of the posts on the other tread links provided. Esat never applied for the licence to run Irish slots, Denis O'Brien worked for a company and was researching Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) that company was involved with RTE's WestSat company. I.E. Dennis O'Brien is one jammy ****er.

The Cush

Elmo wrote: »

So did we licence the slots to Norway or did we sell them to Norway? Can we get them back?

I think we lost the right to use the frequencies allocated at WARC-77 because we did not use them.

The DBS plan was updated at WRC-97 and at WRC-2000 the plan was overhauled which assigned ten national assignments for each country in Regions 1 and 3, with Ireland's assignments moving to a new slot at 37.2º West.

Ofcom carried out a consultation in 2003 and this was their overview of the situation at that time

2. REGULATORY BACKGROUND

The position until 1997
2.1 The use of frequencies by satellite services is regulated by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The World Administrative Radio Conference 1977 (WARC-77) planned the 12 GHz broadcasting-satellite band and divided the geostationary orbit equally among the ITU member states of Regions 1 (Europe and Africa) and 3 (Asia and Australasia). The UK gained five downlink frequencies from an orbital position at 31º West, and was later allocated the related uplink (17 GHz) frequencies.
2.2 In 1990, the UK Government decided to seek additional assignments – through the Broadcast Satellite Service (BSS) Plan-modification procedures of Article 4 of Appendices 30 and 30A of the Radio Regulations – from broadcasting spectrum that had not been pre-allocated to any country as a national right. The UK obtained a further five uplink/downlink frequency pairs, but the subsequent frequency coordination negotiations with neighbouring countries were protracted; full clearance was not obtained until the assignments were formally added to the BSS plans on 12 March 1996.

WRC-97 Plan
2.3 The World Radio Conference 1997 (WRC-97) adopted, with UK support, new BSS downlink and feeder link plans for Regions 1 and 3. As a result, the UK lost its ten assignments from 31º West, but was granted ten assignments at 33.5º West – a position then shared with Ireland, Iceland and a number of African countries. These assignments represented a transfer from the old plan, but five assignments were subsequently deleted from the new plan under the ITU’s ‘due diligence’ rules, as they had not been brought into use within eight years of the date of filing with the ITU Radiocommunications Bureau (ITU-BR). The other five assignments remained as our national entitlement.
2.4 WRC-97 also lifted the provision that prevented the Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) from using BSS assignments. This means that there is no longer any regulatory impediment to telecommunications (including interactive) use, within the required co-ordinated parameters.

WRC-2000
2.5 Following re-planning activities at the World Radio Conference 2000 (WRC-2000), the BSS Regions 1 and 3 Plans were overhauled. The national plan assignments, based on elliptical national coverage areas, were separated from the bulk of the operational assignments that had been entered into the Plans through the Article 4 modification process.
2.6 On average, WRC-2000 assigned ten national assignments for each country in Regions 1 and 3, thereby preserving these countries’ future access rights; these assignments are held in the Regions 1 and 3 Plan. The assignments belonging to real BSS satellite networks representing operational additional uses, such as those for sub-regional coverage, are now held in the Regions 1 and 3 List for 30 years (15 years initially, renewable for a further 15 years).
2.7 The technical sharing criteria used in the co-ordination process to protect assignments in the Plan and List were updated, to ensure more appropriately the correct level of protection for such assignments.
2.8 Similarly, the regulatory procedures of Appendix 30 and 30A were revised to implement the Plan and List concept. They now include an important provision that permits, in the case of continuing disagreement, the provisional notification of assignments onto the List for a single 15-year period. The removal of the conservative sharing criteria and inflexible provisions has reduced the risk to complete co-ordination and so the constraints on using the BSS Plan frequencies have also been greatly reduced.
2.9 As a result of WRC-2000’s positive outcome in re-planning the Regions 1 and 3 BSS Plan, the UK Government is now in a more certain position with respect to its BSS assignments. It is expected that the Plan and List concept will be maintained, and that there will be no need for future conferences to revisit this topic in any substantial way for many years.
2.10 WRC-2000 confirmed the UK’s ten national assignments at the 33.5º West orbital position. This paved the way for the co-ordination and development of UK filings for all 40 channels over UK and European service areas. Co-ordination will take place with only those other administrations possessing Plan or List assignments within a ±9º co-ordination arc of 33.5º West. A preliminary analysis suggests that there are no major constraints that could jeopardise the development of the position.

3. SPECTRUM ORBIT RESOURCE AVAILABLE
3.1 In order to provide the basis for developing a viable UK-based satellite broadcasting service, the Agency submitted filings to the ITU-BR in 1998 for the five guaranteed downlink/uplink pairs and for a further 35 paired channels in the same orbital position, from BSS spectrum not pre-allocated to national administrations.
3.2 The BSS network, given the provisional name UKDIGISAT-1, aims to secure all 40 BSS channels at 33.5º West over a UK service area. To maximise the resource’s potential and flexibility, filings for UKDIGISAT-2 (with a Europe-wide footprint) were also submitted to the ITU-BR in August 1998. Both filings are subject to the same co-ordination rules and criteria, but we expect the coordination of UKDIGISAT-1 to be secured first. This is because it covers the UK only, meaning that we will need to obtain agreements with fewer countries than for UKDIGISAT-2.

UK published plans
3.3 Details of publication of the UK plans are as follows:
• UKDIGISAT-1 published by ITU-R on 26 November 2002 (BR IFIC 2483 AP30/E/214 refers), and MOD-1 BR IFIC 2489 AP30/E/214 (11 March 2003).
• UKDIGISAT-2 published by ITU-R on 25 February 2003 (BR IFIC 2488 AP30/E/229 refers).
These filings expire eight years after dates of receipt at ITU-BR, which were:
• UKDIGISAT-1 – receive date 5 January 1998.
• UKDIGISAT-2 – receive date 7 September 1998.

Update:
Under the 1977 plan Ireland shared 31º West with Portugal, UK, Iceland and Spain. Ireland's assigned channels were 2, 6, 10, 14, 18.
Under the 2000 plan Ireland's new orbital position is 37.2º West with channels 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19 assigned. The slot 37.2º, 37º, 36.8º is shared with Nigeria, Andorra, Gambia, Guinea, Portugal, Senegal, Mauritania and San Marino.
The UK's slot is 33.5º West shared with Cape Verde, Denmark, Iceland, Liberia and Sierra Leone.

From the Main results of WRC-2000

Re-Planning of the Broadcasting-Satellite Service For Regions 1 & 3
The Broadcasting-Satellite Service provides satellite television broadcasting including direct-to-home. Under the plan adopted by WRC-97 for Regions 1 and 3 (i.e. everywhere other than the Americas) which has roots back to 1977, each country was generally given the possibility to make use of five analogue channels on the basis of one beam for national coverage. A number of factors contributed to making the situation unworkable today. They ranged from the rapid development of satellite systems, the use of digital technologies which facilitated the deployment of new regional systems that can target many countries from a single satellite to the advent of new services like Pay TV wanting to extend broadcasting capabilities across as wide an area as possible. In addition, for small countries or for countries with a small population, the use of that capacity restricted to national use often proved to be uneconomical. Also, the emergence of new countries wishing to take up their five channels put more pressure to seek more spectrum.

Although the Plan had become outdated, the idea of re-planning was however not unanimously supported until the start of the Conference. For some, the approach of apportioning spectrum on a country-by-country, rather than on a first come, first served basis was considered wasteful since many countries may never launch their own national broadcast satellite system. The result is that spectrum is effectively kept in abeyance and cannot be used for any other purpose. For others, they wanted to secure the opportunity to be able to use that spectrum when they so wish and not be faced with a blockage when time comes.

Re-planning is a very complex matter with many inter-related aspects, and in particular, the level of constraints imposed for the protection of existing and future assignments in both space and terrestrial services, the allocations to which are different in the different regions of the world. In addition to the technical challenges, the question of BSS re-planning has implications which touched on issues of national sovereignty.

Against this background and against all odds, major differences of approach were ironed out on the eve of the conference and BSS re-planning was agreed by the Conference.

One of the key decisions of WRC-2000 has been to increase the capacity for each country to an equivalent of 10 analogue channels in Europe and Africa and to 12 analogue channels in Asia and Australasia. With the uptake of direct satellite broadcasting in both regions as well as the potential for the future delivery of multimedia services, the decisions of WRC-2000 provide the capacity to meet the current and prospective demand.

In order to ensure full protection of existing and future terrestrial and space services and systems, the Conference requested that an analysis of the new Plan be carried out with respect to compatibility with other services co-sharing on a primary basis so that WRC-2003 can review the power limits that have been agreed upon at this Conference.

Apogee

I had a trawl through some old books on this, but didn't turn up much other the original frequency allocation in the "TV DXers Handbook". Although I do remember a reference to it somewhere in an old copy of WRTH.



The only other mention was in the Dáil record:

Mr. Leyden: I welcome the Minister of State to the House. The question of the utilisation of [961]satellite space allocated to Ireland under international agreement arose during my tenure as spokesperson for Communications. I raised with the Minister at that time, the former Deputy Jim Mitchell, the question of the allocation of Ireland's satellite location to a company called Atlantic Satellites, which was a link between the Hughes Corporation in the United States and Mr. James Stafford, who is well known in the context of the Flood tribunal.

Deputy Mitchell agreed to give this tremendous opportunity to a company with no investment or previous experience and thereby excluded RTÉ and then Telecom Éireann, now Eircom. I raised the issue because I believed a golden opportunity was thrown away by the Minister. His reasons for granting such a valuable asset to a company with a £1 shareholding have never been explained to me. I questioned his decision at the time and now I question it again.

I ask the Minister of State to outline what has happened since that decision was made. Promises have been made and broken. Between 50 and 60 jobs were promised for Shannon but were not delivered. RTÉ lost an opportunity to broadcast into the United Kingdom and parts of Europe, ahead of Sky Television, from a position allocated to Ireland above the Indian Ocean. What has happened to this valuable asset?

This issue has not featured in the media for many years. A golden opportunity was lost to RTÉ. The company could have been ahead of Sky Television and many of the present operators in this field in providing satellite broadcasting. I question the decision by the former Minister and I hope the Minister of State can clarify what has transpired since then in the Department.

The latest information I have on the issue dates from 1988 when Deputy Richard Bruton put down a question to the Minister, Deputy Ray Burke. At that time the Minister had no option but to grant a one year extension to Atlantic Satellite because a commitment had been entered into by the previous Administration.

Why has this serious issue been excluded from the Flood tribunal? The decision of the Minister, former Deputy Jim Mitchell, to afford this Irish asset to Atlantic Satellites, a £1 shelf company linked to the Hughes Corporation in the US, must be questioned. A marvellous opportunity to provide satellite broadcasting to Ireland, the United Kingdom and parts of Europe – the most lucrative market at the time – was lost to the State.

I do not know what information the Minister of State has at her disposal and I will respond when I hear her reply.


Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science (Miss de Valera): I apologise on behalf of the Minister for Communications, Deputy Dermot Ahern, who cannot be here. He has asked me to make the following statement.

I would like to thank the Senator for raising this matter. Satellite communications is but one of many uses of the radio spectrum. The radio spectrum is an important resource in the development of a modern communications infrastructure.

As the radio spectrum is a limited resource, its utilisation is managed through a licensing framework laid down in the Wireless Telegraphy Acts. Licensing is a matter that has devolved from my Department to the Director for Telecommunications Regulation under the Telecommunications (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1996. This function will pass to the new commission for communications regulation, which the Senator is no doubt aware is due to be established shortly. However, I will outline the position in relation to satellite space capacity allocated to Ireland under international agreements.

International agreements covering radio spectrum are normally developed at radio conferences organised by the International Telecommunications Union – the ITU. The decisions of these conferences are normally incorporated into a set of international regulations called the ITU Radio Regulations.

In the areas of space communications there are two different parts of the international regulations that are relevant. One part deals with the broadcasting satellite service. Broadcasting systems are typically one-way transmission systems from the satellite to the consumer. Ireland has been assigned ten transmission channels for satellite broadcasting. With digital transmissions each transmission channel has the potential to cater for between six and ten programme channels. However, there is a trade-off between the picture quality and the number of programme channels.

If a system were to be developed the actual number of programme channels in each transmission system channel would be a matter for an operator to propose and reach agreement with the regulator as part of any licensing agreement. It should also be noted that within the context of the international regulations for the broadcasting service the coverage available is normally based on that necessary to cover one's national territory. Consequently, from the ten transmission channels assigned to Ireland the coverage is primarily restricted to Ireland, although there would be some spill-over into the UK.

Another part of the international radio regulations deals with national allotments for two-way satellite transmission systems. This type of system would typically be used for the telecommunications service, including Internet access. Within this part of the international regulations Ireland has certain rights of access to satellite frequency bands and orbit segments. However, these rights are general in nature. Considerable work would have to be undertaken by a prospective operator in conjunction with the regulator to convert these general rights into operational characteristics and obtain the necessary agreements in accordance [963]with the provisions of the international radio regulations.

Deployment of satellites is a very expensive undertaking. For it to be successful there must be suitable market conditions. Currently I am not aware of any interest to develop an Irish satellite service nor has the director indicated that interest has been expressed to her.

The Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926, although amended over the years, is still the primary legislation covering the use of radio communications. This Act was enacted long before satellites became a reality, and while it covers the licensing of wireless telegraph apparatus on land, sea and in the air, including terminals on the ground transmitting or receiving from satellites, its adequacy in relation to satellites in space is questionable. I am at present having a review of this legislation carried out with a view to proposing new legislation.

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0170/S.0170.200211130009.html
http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0380/D.0380.198805170059.html
http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0366/D.0366.198605130007.html

Elmo wrote: »

So did we licence the slots to Norway or did we sell them to Norway? Can we get them back?

MYOB has provided a partial answer in the third irrelevant link above.

MYOB wrote: »

More accurately, we "lent" British Sky Broadcasting our 5 frequency allocations at 31W under the 1977 ITU allocation, and MarcoPolo 2 used them. whatever channels were on #4, #5 and the blank carrier on BSB used Irish frequencies. Its beam was smaller than 2D and dropped off quite spectacularly half-way across Ireland, going from Squarial (30-something cm plate antenna) in Dublin to 60-80cm normal dish minimum in the west.

Sky sold the satellite to either NSAB or Sirius, not sure which, in 1993. By which time the ITU plan had fallen to peices and some countries, such as the UK, had four times as many channels as the ITU slots allowed and were broadcasting not only on different frequencies but from different parts of the sky entirely...

Ultimately I'm not sure what the real value of the ITU allocation is. In practice it seems that if you occupy an orbital slot first, it's a case of finders, keepers. Especially if you have good lawyers. 2 examples:

AsiaSat, ProtoStar spat now very public
Chris Forrester 29-09-2008
Normally, satellite operators are extremely polite. But if there’s one topic that frequently causes blood to boil it is the question of the co-ordination of satellite frequencies. An especially ugly spat has broken out between Hong Kong-based AsiaSat and ProtoStar, a satellite operator that was originally licensed by Singapore, is nominally based in Bermuda but exists to serve the Asian community – including DISH Network in India.

In India, ProtoStar – or at least some of its capacity - is better known as the Agrani satellite, backed and financed by Zee TV’s parent company. Each and every satellite has to coordinate its frequencies via a well-established formula administered by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) in Geneva. Officially, ProtoStar 1, which launched on July 7 was launched too late and failed to meet an obligation to get itself into orbit by a June 28 deadline.

These deadlines are often missed, but the ITU is well within its rights to forbid it to transmit, especially when potentially overlapping frequencies have not been precisely agreed between adjacent operators.

Peter Jackson, CEO of AsiaSat, told Satellite Finance a few weeks ago that: "The [ProtoStar] Ku band is an issue, but it's the C-Band on the satellite that's going to be the real problem, [as] it is going to interfere with a number of satellites. I know that the Chinese national operator has a problem because they are only a half a degree away with Chinasat 22, and Thuraya has a problem because they have a satellite right at 98.5°. New Skies will have issues as well."

AsiaSat continues to argue that ProtoStar has yet to complete its orbital co-ordination obligations, and China’s Ministry of Industry & Information Technology is also grumbling. AsiaSat says that it reserves the right to take action to “eliminate any interference caused by [ProtoStar]”. This means closing down transponders.

ProtoStar, therefore, seems to be in a confused legal situation, without the shelter of any regulatory support, although ProtoStar says it does have support from a government – except it seems not to be saying which one. One well-informed source says ProtoStar’s new “best friend” is Belarus and the InterSputnik operation.

An AsiaSat statement said: “Due to overlapping geographic coverage and frequencies, ProtoStar-I will have to operate on a non-interfering basis if it has to operate at 98.5°E. This could mean that it may have to operate at very low power levels and use larger antennas, or even switch off the overlapping transponders in order to accommodate other users with higher priority.”

The loser in all this confusion is almost certainly going to be Zee TV’s Dish Network, operating out of New Delhi, which badly needed Agrani/ProtoStar for its channel expansion.

http://www.rapidtvnews.com/index.php/200809292211/asiasat-protostar-spat-now-very-public.html

and closer to home:

“Bitter” satellite squabble looming
For the past year or so Arabsat had rented a Eutelsat satellite (Eurobird 2) as a gap-filler while its new fleet is delivered to 26 deg East. The rental contract came to an end at the beginning of March, but the Eutelsat craft remains more or less onstation, and for the past 12 months Eutelsat has been marketing capacity from this satellite, much to Arabsat’s chagrin. This fresh capacity is being sold by a “virtual” satellite operator, Noorsat (backed in part by the Saudi Arabia-based Mawared Group, which also owns the Orbit pay-TV bouquet). Noorsat has been cheekily telling anyone who would listen that they’re operating from 25.8 deg E. A well-informed source says that since March 5 Eutelsat has contractually not been allowed to operate from 25.8 deg East, “and they have been told to move”. We understand that lawyers are now on the case. “They have publicly advertised that they’re operating at 25.8 degrees andthis simply isn’t the case,” said one source from Dubai. Paris-based Eutelsat say they have a right to occupy 25.5 deg, which Arabsat strongly denies: “Eutelsat’s argument is that they have a right to occupy 25.5 deg on a non-interference basis. We absolutely deny that because the only Eutelsat filing they have for 25.5, which is now a very old filing, is for a totally different generation of satellites and it was with a beam that looked over Central and Eastern Europe, and not even touching our [Middle East] area. They have been told that we have no objection to their being at 25.5 deg East, provided they tilt the craft oradjust the beams to where they should be. This is now the battleground, and I think it will end bitterly, because they are very stubborn but so are we and this is our everyday business that they are taking.” Eutelsat responded by stating they are fully compliant in regard to 25.5 deg East, and that they have complete priority over their footprint. “In terms offrequency coordination the situation is very simple. EuroBird 2 is positioned at 25.5deg East, and we wholly comply with the ITU’s regulatory environment. We have priority in Europe and in all the other regions currently served by the satellite, and this includes Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. We carried out these same duties at Arabsat’s request at 25.8 deg. We were compliant then, and we are completely compliant now. The footprint is no secret.”

http://www.satmagazine.com/apr2007/apr2007.pdf

The Cush

Apogee wrote: »

Ultimately I'm not sure what the real value of the ITU allocation is. In practice it seems that if you occupy an orbital slot first, it's a case of finders, keepers. Especially if you have good lawyers.

Another case closer to home from the late 90's was between SES-Astra and Eutelsat over the 28° East slot.

Satellites frequencies: the decisions of WARC -77 and the "heavenly peace" between EUTELSAT and the SES

Digital satellite broadcasting needed no new frequency allocation. European operators can broadcast within the same wavebands as those laid down by the UIT for analogue broadcasting:
· 0.7 to 11.7 GHz for Satellite Fixed Services (SFS), often referred to as “telecommunications satellites”
· 11.7 to 12.5 GHz for direct broadcasting satellites (DBS), laid down by WARC-77.
· The bandwidth allocated to DBS was subsequently opened up by the UIT to services other than DBS, due to the failure of the first-generation DBS satellite systems. For digital broadcasting, the 11.7 to 12.5 waveband has the advantage of the higher satellite-to-ground transmitter power allowed by the UIT.

There has been a dispute since 1996 over the launch of digital television services, between the two major European satellite operators EUTELSAT and the Société Européenne de Satellites (SES), with both organisations wanting the 28.2° East position for broadcasts over the 11.7 – 12.5 waveband. The dispute put a brake on the development of the two companies and had a knock-on effect on broadcasters' plans for digital services.

The protagonists have now managed to work out a solution to the conflict. The 8 June 1999, EUTELSAT and Société Européenne des Satellites (SES) have reached a comprehensive intersystem co-ordination agreement which will optimise the use of the scarce natural resource of satellite broadcasting frequencies over Europe. The agreement, which was achieved with the active involvement of Deutsche Telekom AG (DT AG), covers the current and planned use of certain orbital positions in the respective Ku frequency bands over Europe.

The aim of the intersystem co-ordination agreement between Europe’s two leading satellite operators is to create new business opportunities for both organisations. The agreement continues to ensure - in the best interest of millions of European satellite users - interference-free satellite broadcasting skies over Europe. According to the two operators, it also favours competition in the satellite communications sector and enhances the long-term competitiveness of satellite transmissions over alternative distribution means.

According to the intersystem co-ordination agreement, SES, in addition to the continued provision of services in the BSS band (11.70 to 12.50 GHz) at 28.2 degrees East, will also use frequencies in the FSS band (10.70 to 11.20 GHz) for Direct-to-Home Services. EUTELSAT will use at 28.5 degrees East the frequencies in the FSS band (11.20 to 11.70 GHz and 12.50 to 12.75 GHz), in particular to ensure the continuation of services currently carried on DT AG’s DFS Kopernikus satellite at that orbital location. SES will use Frequencies from 12.50 to 12.75 GHz at 28.2 degrees East for operations outside of Europe. The Agreement also extends to mutually interference-free operations within the arc 16 degrees East to 21.5 degrees East for both operators.

Source: Developments of digital television in European Union - Version 2 4.12.1999

Apogee wrote: »

MYOB has provided a partial answer in the third irrelevant link above.

Originally Posted by MYOB
More accurately, we "lent" British Sky Broadcasting our 5 frequency allocations at 31W under the 1977 ITU allocation, and MarcoPolo 2 used them. whatever channels were on #4, #5 and the blank carrier on BSB used Irish frequencies. Its beam was smaller than 2D and dropped off quite spectacularly half-way across Ireland, going from Squarial (30-something cm plate antenna) in Dublin to 60-80cm normal dish minimum in the west.

Sky sold the satellite to either NSAB or Sirius, not sure which, in 1993. By which time the ITU plan had fallen to peices and some countries, such as the UK, had four times as many channels as the ITU slots allowed and were broadcasting not only on different frequencies but from different parts of the sky entirely...

BSB (British Satellite Broadcasting) launched in March 1990 from 31° West (13 months - Feb 1989, after Sky Television launched its service from 19° East), The two compaines merged in Nov 1990 and operating as British Sky Broadcasting (BSkyB) but marketed as Sky. Broadcasting from the Marco Polo satellites ceased in early 1992.

Marco Polo 1 was acquired in-orbit by Nordiska Satellitaktiebolaget in 1993, and operated until 2000 as Sirius 1 in the 5 E orbital slot. It was then moved to 13 W, and renamed Sirius W. BSB 1 was sent up to the junk orbit in May 2003.

Marco Polo 2 was acquired in-orbit by Telenor of Norway in 1992, and renamed Thor 1. It was located at 0.8 W until it was switched off in January 2002. However, in November 2002, it was moved to 7.4W, and reactivated with digital test signals broadcasting towards Scandanavia. However, the end was near, and Marco Polo 2 was sent up to the junk orbit in early January 2003.

(Source: http://www.selkirkshire.demon.co.uk/analoguesat/bsb.html, http://space.skyrocket.de/index_frame.htm?http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/marco-polo.htm)

Neither satellite remained at the Ireland/UK 31° West slot so the frequencies allocated were not reused, they were eventually replaced by the WRC-97 / WRC-2000 BSS (DBS) plan.

The UK is again due to place a satellite into its allocated BSS (DBS) slot at 33.5ºW later this year on board a Falcon 9 launch vehicle , the satellite called Hylas will operate at both Ku & Ka Band and will provide two-way data communications links.

Apogee wrote: »

The only other mention was in the Dáil record:

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0170/S.0170.200211130009.html
http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0380/D.0380.198805170059.html
http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0366/D.0366.198605130007.html

Oireachtas debates relating to the award of a licence to Atlantic Satellites to use the channel/frequency allocation at 31ºW
http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/S/0170/S.0170.200211130009.html Seanad Éireann - 13 November, 2002 Adjournment Matters. - Satellite Space Allocation
http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0387/D.0387.198903070022.html Dáil Éireann - 07 March, 1989 Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Satellite Network
http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0380/D.0380.198805170059.html Dáil Éireann - 17 May, 1988 Written Answers. - Direct Broadcasting Satellite
http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0369/D.0369.198611060023.html Dáil Éireann - 06 November, 1986 Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Direct Broadcasting Satellite
http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0368/D.0368.198606170014.html Dáil Éireann - 17 June, 1986 Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Direct Satellite Broadcasting
http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0366/D.0366.198605130007.html Dáil Éireann - 13 May, 1986 Ceisteanna — Questions Oral Answers. - Direct Satellite Broadcasting
http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0363/D.0363.198602190015.html Dáil Éireann - 19 February, 1986 Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Satellite Broadcasting
http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0362/D.0362.198512180020.html Dáil Éireann - 18 December, 1985 Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Satellite Broadcasting (WestSat mis-spelling as Westat in debate transcript)
http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0361/D.0361.198511140007.html Dáil Éireann - 14 November, 1985 Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers - Direct Satellite Broadcasting
http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0360/D.0360.198507020014.html Dáil Éireann - 02 July, 1985 Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Direct Satellite Broadcasting
http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0354/D.0354.198412130040.html Dáil Éireann - 13 December, 1984 Written Answers. - Satellite Broadcasting Service
http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0346/D.0346.198312140180.html Dáil Éireann - 14 December, 1983 Written Answers. - Satellite Broadcasting
http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0341/D.0341.198304270013.html Dáil Éireann - 27 April, 1983 Ceisteanna—Questions Oral Answers - Satellite Communication Facilities
http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0340/D.0340.198303010061.html Dáil Éireann - 01 March, 1983 Written Answers. - Satellite Broadcasting

Flood Tribunal launches full inquiry into Atlantic Satellites Sunday Business Post

Flood Tribunal launches full inquiry into Atlantic Satellites
Sunday, September 10, 2000
Des Crowley

The Flood Tribunal has launched a full investigation into a company called Attlantic Satellites because of a reference in a company document that a prominent political figure had been "looked after".

The Tribunal has been seeking the firm's records and other documentation to establish if the words had an innocent meaning or something questionable was involved.

Atlantic won the licence to put a satellite into the position reserved for Ireland under international agreements in 1985.

There is no suggestion that the securing of the licence was in any way irregular, however.

Businessman James Stafford, one of the principals in Atlantic, is to go before the tribunal on July 4. Another businessman, Oliver Barry, is also due to appear along with others involved in Century radio which went into liquidation in the early 1990s.

The Atlantic probe is understood to have arisen out of the investigations into Century.

Stafford has insisted very strongly that he knew nothing of the £35,000 payment made by Barry to former minister Ray Burke that was revealed earlier this year.

Both Atlantic Satellites and Century were under the aegis of Burke's Department of Communications. After winning the satellite licence, the American Hughes Communications joined Atlantic as the dominant partner.

However, tensions gradually rose. It was during the "tension" between Hughes and Stafford that the note about the prominent figure being "looked after" was made.

Stafford has always denied that he would countenance making payments to politicians.Unless the trawl of Atlantic's papers turns up with some evidence of a payment to a political figure, the tribunal may have to establish whether the words "looked after" meant that a blandishment was paid.

In addition to the cross examination of Century figures on 4 July, it is also expected to emerge that a row over money erupted between Stafford and Barry at Century.

Ultimately this led to legal exchanges and a petition for bankruptcy against Barry by Stafford.

It should be emphasised that the merits of such proceedings were never adjudicated on by the courts.

Atlantic Satellites Limited was Struck Off the companies register on 19 Dec 2003

The Cush

Elmo wrote: »

Also just to correct some of the posts on the other tread links provided. Esat never applied for the licence to run Irish slots, Denis O'Brien worked for a company and was researching Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) that company was involved with RTE's WestSat company. I.E. Dennis O'Brien is one jammy ****er.

Denis O'Brien started his career in 1983 as personal assistant (like Michael O'Leary of Ryanair) to then Guinness Peat Aviation (GPA) boss Tony Ryan and was later appointed Vice President - Satellite Development in the GPA Group. GPA were one of the backers of WestSat, who failed to win the Irish DBS licence.

The original Esat brand adopted by Denis O'Brien in 1986 took its name from Eire Satellite, as the plan was for an Irish-based satellite entertainment channel. This never got off the ground, but O'Brien did launch a home shopping service "The Shopping Channel" (a joint venture with Esat Television Limited & Grattan Next) broadcast on the Sky Television platform from May 1989 to July 1990 (8am - 2pm sharing with Sky Movies). About five years ahead of the boom in satellite broadcasting, it folded, reportedly losing £500,000 in its first month and selling only £14,000 worth of products.
Esat Television Limited, founded with former RTE boss Fred O'Donovan, attracted funding from a Smurfit venture fund and private investors.

O'Brien went on to found Communicorp Group Ltd in 1989 (the company now owns 42 radio stations in 8 countries across Europe and a joint venture with Boxer Access for the Irish commercial DTT multiplexes) and Esat Telecom in 1991 (eventually sold to British Telecommunications Plc's for $ 2.5 billion).

He returned to an Ireland that had yet to boom and after working for a bank, asked Michael Ryan for a job at his GPA aircraft leasing group. It was a decade before the credit crunch hit GPA and before Ryan started his airline and O'Brien left only for fear of staying all his life.

It was in America, where he was selling his father's horse products that he had an epiphany that set him on the road. Staying at the El Dorado motel in Lexington, Kentucky, he was channel-surfing and stumbled across a home-shopping channel. Enthused, O'Brien flew straight to the network's Florida headquarters and then back to Dublin to start his own satellite channel, using Smurfit's money, Rupert Murdoch's technology and Next's retail experience. But in the days before Sky secured football rights, the audience was too small and the channel closed.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/2815836/Denis-OBrien-The-man-who-wants-to-make-a-splash-at-Independent-News-and-Media.html

The first business he established by himself was a satellite television shopping venture. He set up the firm with #150,000 from private investment and some of his own money that he earned by spending three weeks a month in the US, selling horse products to retail outlets from the back of a car.

The television project failed, but O'Brien bounced back when the consortium he headed won the licence for a Dublin radio station, which has since been rebranded as 98FM.

Source: http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2000/09/10/story484379038.asp