MSS players strike back in fight to gain terrestrial access to L-band spectrum

Mobile Satellite Ventures Canada (MSV Canada) is striking back at opponents of terrestrial use of the L-band spectrum with its own technical analysis that says an urban in-fill network can co-exist with MSS without causing harmful interference to itself or to other MSS operators. The company states that its technical evaluations are more accurate than that of its opponents, and that technical considerations shouldn’t be grounds for refusing its access to the spectrum for terrestrial uses. In reply comments to Industry Canada filed in January, the Ottawa-based company writes that Inmarsat Ventures plc overestimated the amount of interference that would be caused by MSV Canada’s proposed terrestrial ancillary network (RoW, Nov. 13/01 and Jan. 22/02). With support from Bell Mobility and the New ICO Global, MSV Canada maintains that only as an integrated provider of satellite and terrestrial services can it offer a terrestrial ancillary service without causing unwanted interference to other MSS operations. The New ICO writes in its own technical assessment that Inmarsat’s figures don’t present an accurate picture of the potential interference levels that could be caused by MSV Canada’s proposed terrestrial in-fill network. "he overly pessimistic assumptions used in the preparation of supporting material is overly conservative and this leads to a gross over-estimation of the interference possibility from the ancillary terrestrial component (ATC) of MSS systems," the New ICO writes in its Jan. 13 reply comments. Inmarsat, formerly a government-run shop, wrote in initial comments that the proposed terrestrial in-fill network would cause five interference problems: in-band signals from MSV mobile terminals would cause interference to Inmarsat’s operations outside of North America; out-of-band emissions from MSV mobile terminals would interfere with signals received for Inmarsat’s North America operations; base station in-band signals would create unacceptable interference into Inmarsat mobile terminals; and MSV’s proposed terrestrial operations would interfere with MSV’s own MSS services and reduce spectral efficiency. In MSV Canada’s reply comments and accompanying technical evaluation, the company attempts to discredit Inmarsat’s arguments point by point. "The hard evidence shows that MSV Canada’s terrestrial operations will not cause harmful interference to Inmarsat’s system or to its users, will not reduce the capacity of MSV Canada’s satellite system, and will not cause interference to global navigation satellite systems (GNSS)," it writes in its Jan. 13 reply comments. On one point, MSV Canada is particularly critical of Inmarsat’s interference assessment. "Inmarsat reaches the absurd conclusion that MSV Canada’s own system would suffer unacceptable interference from its own ancillary terrestrial component," the company writes. "Inmarsat, in its analysis, has understated certain parameter values thus reaching exaggerated quantitative conclusions." Use of existing terrestrial networks unfeasible As the terrestrial mobile operators, with the exception of Bell, pointed out in their initial comments, the preferred approach for offering a terrestrial ancillary service would be to use one of the existing national networks on a commercial basis. MSV Canada, however, says that method of providing this type of offering shouldn’t be considered as a suitable remedy for providing reliable urban coverage. The New ICO adds its support by indicating that the dual-band roaming proposal presented by the terrestrial mobile operators is not a feasible alternative, and suggests that those supporting such a move are less astute than consumers. "Dual-band roaming is clearly an inferior solution in terms of both service quality and spectrum efficiency," the company writes. "ual-band arrangements require customers to accept two phone numbers, two separate bills, manual switching between satellite and terrestrial operation modes, and larger handsets that include the redundant circuitry needed for operation in two different bands of spectrum," it writes. "Further, the array of advanced services that are available on one’s home network are typically not available when roaming onto another network, especially when the two networks have not been designed with similar technologies and feature sets." Both companies conclude that the only suitable way to offer a reliable urban in-fill network would be to have an operator providing integrated satellite and terrestrial services. "More specifically, time-sharing and dynamic spatial coordination are the only means by which ancillary terrestrial operations in the L-band can reuse frequencies assigned to MSS, and such coordination requires that ancillary terrestrial operations be an integral part of the MSS network," MSV Canada writes. Terrestrial players don’t bite on MSV’s plans Telus Mobility, Rogers Wireless Communications Inc. (RWI) and W2N Inc. all agree that if Industry Canada were to grant MSV Canada’s proposal for flexible use of its spectrum resources, it should open up the process to all those interested in developing a terrestrial-based L-band spectrum offering. "hould the department consider it prudent to reallocate the satellite spectrum to permit terrestrial mobile services, …the department would have to initiate a new competitive licensing process to allow all interested parties to apply," RWI writes in its reply comments. While W2N supports MSV Canada’s proposal for terrestrial use of L-band frequencies, it does not support the restricted access presented by MSV Canada. "Flexibility does not, however, mean that Industry Canada must rescue TMI’s unsuccessful business plan to develop its MSS business," the upstart writes. Terrestrial use, terrestrial fees Another point of contention between the two sides is if MSV Canada’s application is approved, should it then be subjected to terrestrial mobile licence fees for its land-based network? The wireless carriers, with the exception of Bell, say yes. "Like use should mean like fees," Telus states. The company previously indicated in its initial comments that "it is incumbent upon the department to ensure that the same uses of spectrum attract the same licence fees and that the spectrum be accorded the same regulatory treatment." Rogers also notes that this would confer a competitive advantage on MSV Canada at the expense of the other terrestrial mobile operators. It agrees with Telus that terrestrial licence fees would be appropriate. RWI goes one step further, though. "ll licence conditions should apply including and not limited to the application of terrestrial mobile fees and conditions applied to advanced policy objectives such as spectrum aggregation limits research and development requirements, and lawful intercept provisions." MSV Canada counters that argument by saying that it will agree to conditions that will guarantee the terrestrial network remains an adjunct or ancillary service. "Moreover, precisely because it will remain primarily an MSS system using satellite L-band spectrum for both satellite and integrated terrestrial components of the service, it should be regulated as an MSS system, with the integrated ancillary component authorized as part of the existing MSS licensing procedure, and all falling under the existing MSS fee structure," the company writes. MSV Canada recognizes that it is unacceptable to any MSS provider to be subjected to harmful interference stemming from the terrestrial use of the L-band spectrum in major urban areas. But the company maintains that it has designed the system with just that in mind.

MSS players strike back in fight to gain terrestrial access to L-band spectrum

News | 02/05/2002 5:00 am EST

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

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us