Second Meeting of the Broadband Fixed Wireless Access Consultative Group Held on 14 February 2000

Those Present:

Dave Toman Chairman RA
Jacqui O’Mahoney Secretary RA
List of all those present at Annex A ( members and 6 Officials)

Apologises were received from Mike Snalam (ITV Network Ltd), Philippe Lambilliotte (Winstar), Steve Cherry (NTL), Nicky Sutton (Invention Marketing Ltd), Peter Scope (Tele 2), David Winder (Balloon-A-Gram), John Macpherson (Ericsson), Scott Marin (Spectra Point Wireless) and Alexander Peschkoff (ChoiceGroup UK).

I Agenda BFWACG(00)7

1. Mr Toman asked if item 4 of the agenda could be brought forward under item 2.

II Minutes of the meeting on 14 January – BFWACG(00)5

2. Mr Green requested an amendment to paragraph 18 on "Spectrum Trading". Spectrum trading was unlikely to be introduced before 2003. Miss O’Mahoney agreed to make the amendment and re-circulate revised minutes. Action: Miss O’Mahoney

III Matters arising

3. A BFWACG member asked the Agency to provide a written statement on why 28GHz was chosen as the preferred band for BFWA and not 26GHz like the rest of Europe. He added that most countries licensing 26GHz also planned to licence 28GHz. He believed that there were at least 6X56MHz, possibly even 8X56MHz, that were not in use in the 26GHz band. Mr Sonke explained that the decision to licence 28GHz for BFWA was taken for strategic reasons following a demand study by fixed links to identify dedicated spectrum in which 26GHz was earmarked. He pointed out that 28GHz was one of the CEPT recommended bands for fixed wireless access. A BFWACG member was concerned that if the Government now switched to 26GHz that it would slow down the fast tracking of BFWA. Mr Toman agreed to produce a paper outlining the position on 26GHz. Action: Mr Toman

VI Oral report on the Technical Sub-Group’s First meeting

4. Mr Lewis reported that the Group had agreed the Terms of Reference with a slight amendment. The group reviewed the existing work within CEPT and the remainder of BFWACG(00)4 covering 40GHz. The following issues were discussed:

	Work was taking place within WG-SE to develop a recommendation for both 26GHz and 28GHz. Some members expressed concerns with the detail in the report and these concerns were highlighted to the RA WG-SE representative If further work was needed it would be extremely important that a substantive input was generated for the next SE19 meeting and input from members was urged. He invited general comments on the recommendation/report especially with a view to possible applicability to the 28GHz band.
	A draft ERC decision for the Band 27.5-29.5GHz had been produced. There were three stages it needed to go through before final agreement within the ERC process:- FM34 in March, WG-FM in April and was subject to agreement on outstanding issues at SE19 in April. He had invited comments from members.
	Aegis presented their technical proposals on sharing and guidelines to the Group. The group now needed to decide how to take forward the Aegis work into the licensing process. He asked members to look at the report in detail and let him have comments.
	Mr Lewis said that he would develop an "issues list" which would be used as a living list in order to update the Consultative Group.
	The next meeting would be held on 24 March at 10.30 at Wyndham House.

5. A BFWACG member raised the issue of the Agency’s overall policy on use of the 28GHz band for terrestrial and satellite systems. Specifically, will additional spectrum potentially be available for terrestrial BFWA on a geographic basis (shared with satellite) in line with the provisions of the ERC Decision on use of the 28GHz band which is currently being drafted within CEPT. It was further noted by another member that if Satellites have access to the 28GHz band, they should pay similar license fees as they would be providing a similar operation. Mr Lewis said that there could be Satellite Interactive Terminals (SITs) in adjacent channels offering similar types of services. A BFWACG member pointed out that if the Agency did go forward with an auction BFWA operators would end up paying a lot more for the spectrum than SITs whose fees were likely to be set under administrative pricing.

V Spectrum Packaging

6. Mr Toman reported to the Group that KPMG had now been appointed as Market/Financial Advisors on BFWA and that Martin Heath, Raphaelle Mazenc and Shakil Marzban were present at today’s meeting as observers. KPMG would be advising the Agency on the best way of packaging the spectrum and assisting in the management of the project.

28GHz – Summary of Responses (BFWACG(00)6)

7. Mr Toman said that the Agency had received 18 responses to the questionnaire. The majority of responses opted for:

	a minimum bandwidth of 2X56MHz.
	infrastructure links to be accommodated within the spectrum. Discussion centred on the possible use of BFWA spectrum being used for point to point infrastructure for mobile networks. The spectrum for the infrastructure was intended to support BFWA services and traditional fixed allocations could support other services. A BFWACG member asked why it should matter if the infrastructure provided the backbone for a different service. Operators needed BFWA for fixed connections, as the current costs were too high. The Agency was ruling the BFWA operators out of the market that could serve 3G. Communications were transparent and that the operators could not catalogue all those who used it. Therefore, the Agency should not exclude anything. Mr Toman agreed that further clarity was required in the Information Memorandum in terms of the use of BFWA for point to point and point to multi-point in support of non-BFWA services.
	Large regional licences would be preferred to ease the co-ordination burden. A BFWACG member said that his company would prefer a mixture of both regional and national licences. A BFWACG member thought that the Agency could use existing LDO areas. A BFWACG member pointed out that members had already responded to this question (Q13 in the Consultation document) and responses to the questionnaire should be read in conjunction with the Consultation document. A BFWACG member thought that the way the question was asked the Agency was only interested in regional licences whereas he would also like to see a mixture. A BFWACG member suggested that regions should be identical for both 28GHz and 40GHz bands.

8. Mr Lewis pointed out that there were similar uncertainties at 40GHz as at 28GHz. As the Agency hoped to licence the 40GHz band soon after 28GHz it was important to resolve these issues, in particular, to clarify the LDO position. A BFWACG member asked if there was any use of 40GHz by the LDOs. Mr Toman said that there were currently two trails. A BFWACG member felt that it was unfair for LDOs to block the spectrum for use by BFWA operator.

VI Any Other Business

9. A BFWACG member asked whether revised timescales were available. Mr Sonke said that a firm timetable could not be sent until key decisions had been made, in particular whether licences would be awarded by a beauty contest or auction. But he recognised the need for a clear steer to industry as soon as possible.

10. Members found the BFWA page within the Agency’s Website very helpful and as a result, thought that there was no longer a need to circulate papers via email but just to notify members when a new document(s) was to appear on the Web. Members requested that documents should be made available in both PDF and Word format as well as HMTL. Miss O’Mahoney agreed to arrange.

11. The next meeting would be held on 10 March at 14.00 at Wyndham House.

Top