Spectrum set-aside issue raised in consultation on 3.6 GHz band

LEONARD EICHEL • The United Telecom Council of Canada (UTC) and Rogers Communications Inc. have submitted surprisingly frank comments in response to Industry Canada’s call for submissions regarding its proposed spectrum utilization policy for the 3.6 GHz band (DGTP-006-06). Stating that its utility members "cannot wait for private sector carriers to extend their services to all areas where network monitoring and meter-reading applications are required," the UTC recommends that Industry Canada reserve 25 MHz of the available spectrum for its members’ use on an exclusive basis. The utility telco association continues by hinting that the very security of the country’s energy system is at stake, stating that "a licensing system that fails to provide utilities with adequate access to this resource will do nothing to address the important need for greater security and greater control of the national power grid." And Rogers questions the utility of even providing comments at all, stating that it "believes that it is premature to define the spectrum utilization policy, technical and licensing requirements for this band in Canada." Rogers suggests that the licensing and utilization of this band in Canada should be harmonized with rules in the US as set out by the Federal Communications Commission. "It will be difficult, if not impossible, to do so," writes Rogers, "until the US FCC has made a final determination with respect to the significant issues that are currently under dispute." Despite the nod to the uncertain situation in the United States, Rogers and other parties submitted detailed comments stating that Industry Canada must coordinate its spectrum planning efforts with the United States. They also filed comments on a variety of other issues such as whether there should be exclusive or non-exclusive licences, whether Industry Canada should set aside spectrum for new entrants and how the final band plan should be structured. Most parties argued that the available 50 MHz of spectrum be split into two blocks – either a 30/20 or a 25/25 split – allowing the flexibility to award both exclusive and non-exclusive licences, although the reasons why the licences should be exclusive varied widely. Rogers, for example, stated that the use of exclusivity for half of the bandwidth so that "potential licensees will be provided with an equal opportunity to be licensed in the band on the basis of their preferred licensing approach." UTC, on the other hand, wanted the availability of a portion of the bandwidth to be assigned to utility companies on an exclusive basis. The BC Wireless Network Society argued the entire spectrum block be licensed on a non-exclusive basis. "The society generally feels the public interest is best served by having spectrum available on a non-exclusive basis," it said, "provided technical guidelines are in place to require contention based devices and that such devices be used for broadband applications only." In a novel suggestion, the society stated that Industry Canada should adopt a "registration" system rather than a licensing model. Under its proposal, users of the spectrum would register their use of the spectrum, specifying channel bandwidths and purposes of use. This registration database would then be used as an ongoing communications tool to facilitate bandwidth sharing between various users. On the issue of whether a portion of the spectrum should be reserved for new entrants or for other purposes, opinions varied widely. The City of Calgary argued that the department should effectively set aside spectrum for municipalities for the provision of emergency communication. "Industry Canada has in the past recognized that the use of radio frequencies is required to protect lives and property in cases of emergency," stated the city. "The City of Calgary recognized this and requests that Industry Canada assign required broadband wireless license spectrum for the municipal government’s provisioning of emergency communication and safety services." Barrett Xplore Inc. argued that a portion be reserved for new entrants not already affiliated with any of the large national wireless operators, an opinion shared by others, such as Redline Communications, which stated that the 3650-3700 MHz band should "be made available only to contenders who do not already hold spectrum licences in the current 2.3, 2.5 and 3.5 GHz bands." Similarly, TeraGo Networks said that "if Industry Canada takes the view that an auction of the spectrum is necessary and in the public interest, such auction should be limited to new entrants, specifically excluding parties that are licensees of 2.3 GHz or 3.5 GHz spectrum." Some parties wanted to place limits on how many licensees Industry Canada permitted to operate in the band. Mipps Inc. stated that a maximum of four licensees should be permitted in one service area, while TeraGo Networks voiced its belief that three licensees per service area was sufficientWith the issue of foreign ownership of telecommunications facilities being talked up behind the scenes in Ottawa, several parties had some interesting comments to make regarding what is usually a fairly standard bullet point in Industry Canada’s spectrum consultation documents – the issue of which companies are eligible to apply for licenses. While there was unanimous agreement that only Canadian companies could apply given current regulations, a few parties wanted the department find a better way to pre-screen applicants. The Radio Advisory Board of Canada stated that "the department either implement such a determination phase prior to the competitive licensing process or vastly streamline the present procedure to make this determination."

Spectrum set-aside issue raised in consultation on 3.6 GHz band

News | December 4, 2006

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