Asms_01_C18_0 Page 1 of 6

Toulouse,France April 25th 2001 Input from Telenor to the ASMS-TF Commercial Requirements report
All input and comments refer to version 3 of the report. Item 1 : Suggest to add the following text at the end of the paragraph 2.1.1.1 Introduction, to highlight some of the anticipated challenges associated with multi-mode terminals : An important aspect for multi-mode terminals is the extent of integration, meaning how much hardware and functionality is integrated and shared between the modes. To illustrate, some examples are : Common User-interface: This would be a limited integration to provide the user with a common user interface, such as menus, address lists, capability to switch modes etc. The hardware and software of the terminals would otherwise be completely independent. Common control systems: Integration at the control systems layer would mean that the behaviour in one mode would depend one the other modes' operational state ( e.g. off, out of coverage, busy ) requiring a deeper integration between the systems. Common modem functions: This would be reuse of modem related functions such as MA scheme, modulation method and synchronisation mechansims. The advantage of such integration is the possible reuse of hardware such as chips, the disadvantage is less freedom for optimising towards each air interface. Common RF systems: This would be reusing RF equipment such as antenna and power amplifiers etc. Again the motivation would be terminal cost reduction, but with the severe disadvantage of imposing constraints on the S-UMTS air interface, possibly resulting in a sub-optimal satellite resource utilisation and terminal design.

It should also be noted, even if there is no integration at the terminal level, there is still scope for various degree of integration at subscription level, such as a single bill, a single customer care interface etc. A commercial challenge for the success of multi-mode terminals, is to attract required attention and commitment from the leading T-UMTS terminal manufacturers. Providing SUMTS capabilities in their mainstream T-UMTS terminal models, can not be expected to be their top priority. Other challenges with multi-mode are numbering, mobility management and billing. Item 2 : Suggest to add the following text at the end of the section Degree of user cooperation needed of the paragraph 2.1.1.2.1 Handheld terminals to highlight the anticipated services constraints associated with handheld terminals : The size/weight requirements for handhelds combined with the inefficient link budgets to cater for indoors penetration and omnidirectional terminal antennas, make it difficult to

Asms_01_C18_0 Page 2 of 6

provide T-UMTS like services, and will probably limit the handheld S-UMTS terminal's service capabilities to narrowband services such as voice and low-speed data. Item 3 : Suggest to the modify the following two bullets in the Services section in the paragraph 2.1.1.2.1 Handheld terminal: Web/WAP browsing. (low speed) Audio streaming. (limited quality)

Item 4 : Suggest to add the following text in the Degree of user co-operation needed section of the paragraph 2.1.1.2.2 Transportable terminals , appended to sentence ending with "NGSO satellite systems" : , where complex and costly antenna steering systems would be required at the terminal . Item 5 : The following are comments to the paragraph 2.3.2.1 Inter-working with PSTN networks : General comment: There is a significant amount of the technical terms and detail contained in 2.3.2.1. As this report should focus on commercial aspects and requirements, some of this could be omitted and left for considerations by the technical group. The term "PSTN integration at gateway level" (A) seems to be regular interconnection of the S-UMTS and the PSTN networks. It is an obvious and absolute requirement that SUMTS is capable of interconnecting with existing and mainstream networks, not only PSTN/ISDN, but also other networks such as GSM and Internet. Interconnection should be differentiated from integration/inter-working. The term "PSTN integration at access level" (B) seems to be describing the infrastructur operator's need for a backbone network, connecting gateways and fixed network access points in some sort of an internal VPN. This network would probably be IP based rather than PSTN based, but this is anyway internal infrastructure which is built and operated by the infrastructure operator. A number of functions/modules have been defined e.g. PGSC, SDB and SGCSS. These are indeed necessary functions, and would normally belong naturally within the S-UMTS gateways/FESs. It is not clear why these functions have been explicitly defined and mentioned here. An aspect concerning PSTN/ISDN networks which has not been dealt with in 2.3.2.1, is the possibility to let S-UMTS form a modular extension of the fixed networks rather than an integrated extension of cellular networks. This would mean leveraging on the numbering, routing and billing regimes in the fixed networks rather than those of the cellular networks. This is an alternative which should not be ignored.

Asms_01_C18_0 Page 3 of 6

Item 6 : The following are comments to the paragraph 2.3.2.1 S- UMTS inter-working requirements with GSM: This paragraph seems to address only the advantages of T-UMTS alignment such as equipment reuse. However, it should be noted that there are also disadvantages associated with extensive T-UMTS alignment. Most importantly, full T-UMTS alignment would jeopardise the freedom to design a sound S-UMTS system, optimised towards the satellite segment, to ensure acceptable service capabilities and usage cost. This is particularly important for the access network. In general, if aligning/integrating completely with the cellular networks, one would not only inherit the advantages, but also the disadvantages, such as an inefficient and pricy roaming regime etc. This should be taken into account, and compared against the pros and cons of other viable alternatives, such as S-UMTS as a modular fixed network extension.

Item 7 : Suggest to add the following text before the existing header "Users require value for money" in paragraph 2.3.2.2 to highlight the user requirements for higher data rates : Users require services with data rates similar to those provided by T-UMTS : Potential S-UMTS users will typically be familiar with data rates and services being offered by T-UMTS. Hence, S-UMTS should be designed with the aim to provide these services as well. Terminal with directive antennas of a certain size (e.g. portable palmtop and laptop types) will satisfy this requirement in the best way, whereas handheld terminals will be limited to provide narrowband services such as voice and low- speed data. It should be noted that this requirement to a certain extent is in conflict with the portability requirements (size and weight) stated above, so a sensible trade-off is required . Item 8 : The following are comments to the section with the header "Availability for services globally" in paragraph 2.3.2.2 : Suggest to change header to "Service coverage area" The service coverage area is a very important factor for the user. Partly this has to do with indoor/outdoor penetration aspects (as explained in the existing text), but it is also about the geographical footprint. The geographical footprint is governed by the satellite constellation parameters such as the number of satellites, the orbit (LEO/GEO etc.) , the satellites spot configuration etc.

Item 9 : The following are comments to the section with the existing header "One single number" in paragraph 2.3.2.2, to identify that there are a number of commercial and system implications with one single number : Routing : In PSTN/ISDN routing is done based on dialled numbers. How can one accommodate specific routings for T-UMTS and S-UMTS if numbering is the same?

Asms_01_C18_0 Page 4 of 6

Billing : In PSTN/ISDN billing is done based on dialled numbers. How can one accomodate different to-mobile charges for T-UMTS and S-UMTS if numbering is the same? ( One solution is to let called party pay the S-UMTS markup, but that would not be attractive for the S-UMTS user.) With one single number for T-UMTS/S-UMTS, S-UMTS imposes changes on the TUMTS/ GSM mobility management system. This would be undesirable according to the requirement named "Minimise GSM system modifications".

Item 10 : A general comment to the requirements listed in 2.3.2.2 : The first requirements (incl. Single contact number) take the user perspective, whereas the others rather take the S-UMTS operator perspective. Suggest to make explicit mention of this.

Item 11 : The following are comments to the section with the header "Minimise GSM modifications" in paragraph 2.3.2.2: Heading could say "eliminate" instead of "minimise" and "GSM and T-UMTS" instead of GSM. The rationale being that it is rather unlikely to get cellular industry and operators to make any special catering and commit any additional costs for such a small market as the one SUMTS represents.

Item 12 : Suggest to modify the section with the existing header "RF power efficiency" in paragraph 2.3.2.2 to the following text: Satellite resource efficiency : Both power and bandwidth are naturally scarce resources in any mobile satellite system. Therefore, the S-UMTS system (incl. air interface, signalling protocols etc.) should be designed so that satellite resources are well managed, in order to allow for acceptable combinations of end-user charges and service capabilities. Item 13 : The following are comments to the section with the Location register interworking" in paragraph 2.3.2.2: S-UMTS/ T-UMTS Location register interworking should not be regarded an essential requirement. As discussed above, this is rather a constraint imposed by the "one single number" requirement. With reference to Inmrasats existing mobility management system, it is possible to achieve a powerful and cost-efficient solution without any cellular system interworking. Also, this requirement would only be useful for S-UMTS users who roam frequently between the S-UMTS and T-UMTS segments. Considering the existing mobile satellite user base, the numbers of such customers are not expected to be high. Item 14 : The following are comments to the paragraph 2.3.2.3.2 Network Architecture Description :

Asms_01_C18_0 Page 5 of 6

It is not clear who owns what in these architectures. It could make sense to differentiate between the T-UMTS operator , S-UMTS operator and the ISP - these may be three different commercial entities. Same general comment as under item 5 : There is a significant amount of the technical terms and detail contained in 2.3.2.3.2, which some of it could be omitted Item 15 : The following are comments to the paragraph 2.3.2.3.4 Handover issues :

On handover, one should make distinctions between the different types of handover : TUMTS to S-UMTS ( segment-to-segment), sat-to-sat, spot-to-spot. In a GSO system only the latter, if any, is worth considering given the required cost/complexity involved. ( In a NGSO system also sat-to-sat handover will have to be considered.) This section seems to deal with handovers between T-UMTS and S-UMTS. This should not be considered an essential requirement.

Item 16 : Suggest to add the following text as a contribution to the paragraph 4.1. "Lessons learnt from the past" : "Do not be over-optimistic about mobile satellite market size"

Irridium and Globalstar, both estimated millons of users and expected new markets segment to evolve , but ended up with a multiple of tens of thousands users, mainly from the usual "desperate communicators" in the vertical markets. For S-UMTS, it is important that such misjudgements are not repeated, market estimates should be based on historical data rather than futuristic dreams, and the system should be designed accordingly. "Handheld is not the only way"

Many of the new systems during the recent years aimed at providing GSM-like handheld phones. However, the traditional mobile satellite users have to a surprisingly large extent stuck to existing systems (e.g. Inmarsat) providing services with larger, bulkier terminals. For the users in the traditional vertical markets, it seems to be equally (or more) important to get T-UMTS-like services rather than T-UMTS-like terminals "Do not underestimate the complexity and costs associated with NGSO systems"

So far no mobile satellite communication system deploying other than geostationary satellites have shown out to be economically viable. The lower orbits require higher number of satellites, higher number of launches and the satellites have shorter lifetimes, all drivers for the system's operational costs. Additionally, the complexity of required NGSO functionality such as handovers, have shown out to be difficult issues. "Do not rely solely on the cellular industry"

In there recent years there have been numerous mobile satellite initiatives having tried to attract the major players, manufacturers and operators, from the cellular world. So far the success has been limited, an important obstacle is that the cellular players tend to regard the mobile satellite market to be too small to invest too much of their attention to. (Maybe

Asms_01_C18_0 Page 6 of 6

understandably so, even the most optimistic estimate of 8m S-UMTS users in this document, would equate to less than 1% of the global T-UMTS market.) The success stories of the past years have to a large extent been with smaller players who have focused on satellite and the relevant vertical markets.