MSV Canada faces uphill battle in scoring terrestrial use of satellite spectrum

Canada’s wireless carriers, with the predictable exception of Bell Mobility, have expressed vehement opposition in comments to Industry Canada to granting Mobile Satellite Ventures Canada (MSV Canada) its request for exclusive access to terrestrial use of the L-band spectrum. They argue that there’s no reason to approve the plan when there are already four national wireless networks upon which the company can draw to provide terrestrial services. MSV Canada has bid to use portions of its satellite spectrum holdings for a terrestrial in-fill network (RoW, Nov. 13/01). The company, formed from the merger of TMI Communications and U.S.-based Motient Corp.’s satellite business (RoW, Dec. 11/01), wants to use its L-band spectrum to provide urban coverage via a terrestrial network in concert with its satellite coverage of rural and remote Canada. The company argues that only an integrated system will be able to efficiently offer a viable service. "Currently, L-band spectrum cannot be fully utilized in urban areas due to ‘shadowing’ that blocks the satellite signal path. Nor can this spectrum be simply re-allocated to another application," writes Liz Tasker, MSV Canada’s VP MSAT operations. "Indeed, unless the ancillary service is fully integrated with the MSS systems as proposed by MSV Canada, harmful interference between the two systems will result." In submissions to Industry Canada (DGTP-009-01), however, incumbent wireless providers insist that MSV Canada should ink commercial roaming agreements to use one or more of the existing terrestrial networks. Ed Prior, Telus Mobility’s director of government and regulatory affairs, notes that "nowhere in the consultation is there any indication that Canada needs a fifth terrestrial network. "Telus submits that a better way of accomplishing the stated objective of enhancing rural service via an economically sound MSS service offering is for Industry Canada to require the applicant to make a commercially viable arrangement with an existing terrestrial mobile operator for the terrestrial portion of this service," Prior writes. The sentiment expressed by Telus is echoed by two other mobile spectrum holders, Rogers Wireless Communications Inc. (RWI) and W2N Inc., which say that entering into some type of roaming arrangement with one of the existing four national wireless operators is a more cost-effective approach. "RWI submits that if, in fact, TMI wishes to establish what it contends is simply an ‘ancillary service’, it could also enter into a commercial roaming arrangement with an existing terrestrial mobile operator for the provision of urban mobile services to its existing and future customers," writes Dawn Hunt, VP government and inter-carrier relations. While W2N welcomes the added flexibility of L-band spectrum as proposed by MSV, it opposes exclusive access to the band. Rogers Wireless agrees, writing in its submission that Industry Canada "should initiate a new competitive licensing process to allow all interested parties to apply." W2N also questions TMI’s assertion that a single integrated satellite and terrestrial network is needed to offer this type of service in the most effective manner. It notes that roaming between space-based and terrestrial services already exists. The company cites Globalstar as an MSS provider with such capabilities. "Wireless operators have learned to work together with roaming arrangements for over 15 years, and there is no reason to expect insurmountable difficulties with space-terrestrial roaming," the company writes. "Indeed, the premise of TMI’s ‘integrated’ service is such that roaming is technically non-problematic." Bell Mobility, however, rejects the notion of easy commercial relations, saying that centralized control of spectrum is necessary to operating an effective system. "Coordinating between an MSS provider and independent operators of the terrestrial system would create numerous technical problems in terms of preventing interference into MSV and the other MSS systems," writes Don Woodford, Bell’s VP government and regulatory affairs. Cynical observers will note, though, that TMI, the Canadian partner in MSV, is a BCE Inc. company and thus an affiliate of Bell Mobility. Business problems could also arise, Woodford writes. "For example, what would be the profit-sharing formula used, and if parties were unable to reach an acceptable agreement, who would arbitrate? If the terrestrial operator wishes more spectrum, who will resolve such a dispute if the satellite operator is unable to allocate more spectrum?" The urban interference issue doesn’t fly with Inmarsat Ventures plc either, which contends terrestrial use of the L-band spectrum will cause additional interference with its MSS operations. The company writes: "Terrestrial use of L-band frequencies would cause unacceptable interference to Inmarsat’s systems both outside and within Canada, exacerbate the current shortage of MSS spectrum and violate Canadian obligations under the ITU Radio Regulations and under a separate international coordination agreement." Terrestrial use of L-band necessary to survival MSV Canada indicates that its survival, and the industry’s in general, depends on the department’s approval of its application. The company says the entire MSS industry is in dire straits and approval of its application is needed to ensure the long-term viability of the industry. "Denying this proposal will… essentially condemn MSS providers to remaining marginalized, high-cost service providers, to the extent that these operators can continue to stay in business at all," Tasker writes. Inmarsat, however, doesn’t agree with MSV Canada that survival of the MSS industry depends on access to terrestrial use of L-band spectrum in Canada and the United States. (Motient has made a similar proposal to the U.S.-based Federal Communications Commission, RoW Update, Nov. 5/01). Inmarsat assures Industry Canada that it is "a successful commercial operator of a global MSS network and has no need for a complementary terrestrial component. …Already there are over 220,000 Inmarsat terminals registered for use on the land and sea, and in the air, around the world." The majority of Canada’s wireless operators don’t buy MSV Canada’s idea that it needs terrestrial access to L-band spectrum and they are concerned that MSV Canada would eventually abandon its satellite services and more aggressively target more lucrative terrestrial services, if approval was granted. "If TMI is granted the right to develop a terrestrial network, Industry Canada can expect that TMI and Motient will proceed full speed to launch their terrestrial service, especially in the USA, but it can have little confidence that the same energy will be evident in deploying a satellite service," W2N writes. "The incentive for the latter is simply non-existent." Rogers Wireless agrees with W2N and "considers that approval of TMI’s application would permit it to take advantage of a terrestrial allocation and would create an overwhelming incentive for it to abandon its satellite operation and transition into what they perceive to be a more lucrative terrestrial market." Allowing MSV Canada to deploy a terrestrial in-fill network would allow the "camel’s nose under the tent", writes Telus Mobility. "If the application as contained in the consultation is to be granted then ironclad guarantees must be given to Canada’s terrestrial mobile industry that no further encroachments, expansion of rights, protection or access within this spectrum will be allowed," the company writes.

MSV Canada faces uphill battle in scoring terrestrial use of satellite spectrum

News | January 22, 2002

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us