As soon as an allocation is given to a radiocommunication service for a particular frequency band, it has been adequately publicly demonstrated that this radiocommunication service needs this frequency band. Without such a demonstration no allocation is given. After this allocation has been given, the ITU Constitution, neither the ITU Convention nor the ITU Radio Regulations support the view that a radiocommunication service can enjoy protection only when additional details on need for its operations are demonstrated.
The ITU Radio Regulations and regional and national frequency plans as allocation plans do
not deal with the characteristics of the factual operational status of an application in a
radiocommunication service; this is part of the responsibility and sovereignty of the
individual radiocommunication service. Nevertheless, specific coordination scenarios could
include planning to specific applications when this is practiable.
Secondly, if providing scheduling is accepted that a radiocommunication service may consider
protecting another service only when that latter has additionally demonstrated its needs to this
first service, other questions arise which are related to the criteria for this demonstration,
for this need, and why the other service asking for proof of this need has the mandate to
demand this.
Thirdly, if this kind of demonstration of need is accepted, the difference in allocation
status between radiocommunication services becomes arbitrary and relies on pressure brought
by private (usually commercial) entities. If such a practice is accepted the status of the
regulations is significantly weakened.