 |
Summary of Responses Received to the Questions Circulate on Following The First BFWACG Questions |
|
Summary of Responses Received to the Questions Circulate on Following The First BFWACG Questions |
The Agency received 18 responses to the questions circulated to BFWACG members.
1a Should frequency assignments at 28 GHz be consistent with the CEPT plan?
Most believed that assignments at 28GHz should be consistent with the CEPT plan as there were standards available at 28GHz for FDD and that the CEPT plan also allowed for TDD technology. Point to point links could also be accommodated within the same band plan. It would also enable harmonisation with other countries.
A minority felt that the Agency should take a "hands off" approach leaving the market to decide how best to structure the band. The CEPT band plan could also lead to inflexibility and stifle innovation within the industry
1b What is the optimum size for frequency assignments – 28, 56, 112 MHz or something else?
There were a variety of responses. Some found 28MHz acceptable but 56MHz was the bandwidth most frequently seen as an acceptable minimum, some supported bandwidth up to 112MHz (with one or two in excess of that).
1c If there is no clear consensus on the size of frequency assignments, what do you think about assigning spectrum in, say, 28 MHz blocks, with operators able to bid for a number of blocks in any particular area depending on the services they wish to offer?
In principle, the majority agreed with the Agency’s proposal but they were concerned that if the 28MHz blocks were not contiguous it would lead to more guardbands. Others felt that 28MHz blocks were not large enough. Building blocks of 3.5MHz, 7MHz and 14MHz was also suggested. Some operators believed that this question implied that awards would be by auction. This is not the case if a beauty contest was held bids would also have to be submitted.
1d Should the assigned spectrum be available for infrastructure links?
The majority of operators agreed that infrastructure links should be available within the 28GHz band. If the operator planned his service well it could result in a rapid network roll out. It would also avoid the burden of additional licensing requirements. However, it was questionable whether PTP links could co-exist with PMP links.
A very small minority felt that it was poor use of the spectrum leading to the need for more co-ordination between operators.
2a What is the optimum size for licence coverage areas?
Most opted for regional to large regional coverage to avoid the burden of frequency co-ordination between operators. Suggestions included Regional Development Area (RDA) sub-areas, Local Authority Areas, cable TV franchises areas, Government Office Regions and high-density clusters of population.
A minority thought that national (throughout the UK) licences should also be available.
2b What factors should be taken into account in defining areas?
The majority agreed that boundaries should not cut through major towns and cities but should run through lightly populated areas. Propagation, topography, population, business viability and co-ordination requirements should also be taken into account when defining the areas.
3 At 40 GHz should the Agency be technology neutral in making assignments and flexible in making assignments best suited to licensees’ requirements?
All agreed that the Agency should be technology neutral. Some suggested that technical constraints should be placed on the equipment to ensure mutual co-existence.
|
