First meeting of the Broadband Fixed Wireless Access Consultative Group Held at Wyndham House on 14 January 2000

Dave Toman Chairman RA

List of all those present at Annex A (44 members and 13 Officials)

6. The group agreed both these documents.

7. Mr Toman said that the Agency needed guidance from industry how best to package spectrum at 28GHz. How much bandwidth was required to provide a viable operation? How many BFWA operators are sustainable? How many regions to be covered, given the potential broadband wireless market and the competition from other wired platforms?

8. Mr Lewis introduced his paper (BFWACG(00)04), concentrating on the 28GHz aspects. It was intended as a starting point in the process and outlining some of the Agency’s thinking for industry comments. The regional approach had been suggested in responses to the Consultation Document and the suggested band plan had been produced respecting the CEPT T/R 13-02 28MHz channel plan for the band.

9. A BFWACG member thought that operators should able to decide the best band plan for their service and not be restricted by the Agency. A BFWACG member said that the band plan seemed to suggest that the Agency had assumed frequency division duplex (FDD) systems. Mr Lewis explained that the band plan was consistent with T/R 13-02 and that it did not preclude the use of time division duplex (TDD) systems. He was open to other suggestions for band plans to enable a mix of both FDD and TDD systems to be deployed. A BFWACG member raised the issue of sliding or growing assignments whereby there was flexibility for successful operators to "grow" into spectrum of those who were not as successful. Mr Lewis replied that he could see advantages and disadvantages of growing assignments. However, in the main a potential operator would know the market they wanted to address and how much bandwidth was required, varying assignments would lead to an unpredictable interference environment, and there would be consequential issues relating to re-tuning equipment. He welcomed any written proposals from Industry on ideas behind sliding/growing assignments. Action: Members

10. A BFWACG member welcomed the tone of the document. He said it was clear that the Government wanted to remain technically neutral and had gone some way to ensure that the licensing did not restrict the market place. Mr Lewis remarked that minor amendments were required to parts of the 28GHz ETSI standard (EN 301 213) to accommodate TDD and that these were in hand. Mr Toman said that a sub-group, headed by Mr Lewis, would be set up to address technical issues. Details of the technical sub-group schedule and agenda would be provided shortly. Action: RA

11. A BFWACG member pointed out that there were various administrations in Europe using different channel plans at 28GHz that did not align with T/R 13-02 and wondered how this might affect timing in Europe. Mr Sonke said that the Agency’s objective was to award licences by the end of the summer, but admitted there was a level of uncertainty about sharing issues at 28GHz and sought feedback from the group on what was an acceptable level of uncertainty. Mr Lewis explained that the sharing issues were being tackled within CEPT. However, there was difficulty in resolving the issues before the licensing process commenced. He encouraged members to take part in CEPT activities to expedite the outcome A BFWACG member asked, knowing the problems at 28GHz and the other activities in Europe at 26GHz, why the Agency chose to licence 28GHz and not 26GHz. Mr Toman said that 26GHz was used for Fixed Links in the UK following industry consultation and that if industry were interested in 26GHz for BFWA they should let the Agency know in writing. If there was a general view in favour, he would set out the Agency’s position on paper. Action: Members

12. Mr Toman said that the Agency was interested in how much bandwidth would be required to provide a viable service. A BFWACG member remarked that several European administrations had licensed 2 x 56MHz at 26GHz. He added that this spectrum did not accommodate the infrastructure requirement as this was generally provided by fixed links in other bands. Mr Lewis said that BFWA spectrum would be licensed to provide "customer access" and that it was generally assumed that the infrastructure requirement would be met by fixed link spectrum or other means. He added that work was underway in several forums to identify the bandwidth requirements for full access networks and that this would be discussed in the technical sub-group. A BFWACG member thought that the Agency could place a requirement within the licence for the fixed link infrastructure. Mr Toman agreed that the Agency needed to take this issue away. He asked members to let the Agency know their thoughts on infrastructure requirements. Mr Sonke added that the Agency needed more information from industry on the sort of services they wished to provide and how much spectrum is required to meet this.

13. A BFWACG member asked about the duration of the licences. Mr Toman said that this had not yet been decided. Responses to the consultation document indicated that licences should be of a sufficient duration to enable a viable business proposition and to allow a business to develop, grow and mature. A BFWACG member felt that there should be a "use it or lose it" obligation in the licence to ensure the spectrum was used or returned to the Agency.

14. A BFWACG member asked about promotional activities. Mr Toman explained that in parallel to the work of this group the Agency was taking on market advisors. Mr Sonke added that one of the key functions of the advisors would be to market the opportunity and resolve some of the market problems such as licence packages, area covered and spectrum required.

15. A BFWACG member said that BFWA could eventually replace wired systems. Its advantage was that service coverage was instantly available as soon as the base station was established. Mr Toman asked whether BFWA was a direct competitor to ADSL. A BFWACG member said that it was not a perfect substitute but could deliver almost immediately to Small-Medium Enterprises (SMEs) within business parks. A BFWACG member said that through BFWA SMEs should be able to gain cost effective services, but access to funding was critical. Both technologies had strengths and weakness overlapping in some cases. A BFWACG member was concerned that certain companies may want to delay the deployment of BFWA to promote their own services/platforms.

16. Mr Toman asked whether people would be happy with Option 1 of attachment 1 in Mr Lewis’s paper. A BFWACG member said that people would start picking off areas where it was worthwhile providing the service but there would be areas, due to the size of the population, that would not receive any applications. If this resulted in coverage obligations within the licence conditions it would be a recipe for disaster. Mr Toman said that the Agency could ask people to identify the areas they would be prepared to bid for. He asked whether a pick and mix approach, as opposed to a planned area, would be more suitable. Mr Lewis pointed out that there needed to be some structure to facilitate ordered band planning and co-ordination, and to maximise the access to spectrum, although, he would be happy to consider all ideas. A BFWACG member said that a "pick and mix" approach sounded attractive but did not work in practice because of the variety of requirements (as Sweden had found). Belgian had used the "first come, first served" approach which was also unsuccessful. A BFWACG member felt that option 1 was inadequate. There should be no limitation on the number of blocks, which was much more consistent with wideband use. A BFWACG member suggested that the UK could gain some knowledge from other countries that had just gone through the process. Mr Sonke pointed out that the services had not been running long enough to know whether they were successful.

17. Mr Green explained that the Commission had, at the UK's instigation, proposed as part of a wide-ranging review of communications legislation, to amend the directive to facilitate spectrum trading. However, the timetable of the review meant that trading was unlikely to be introduced before 2003. Meanwhile, the Agency was consulting lawyers on possible alternatives that would allow a degree of flexibility within the constraints imposed by exisiting EU law.

         Preparation for the next meeting

18. Mr Toman said that the Agency would prepare a list of questions on how the spectrum should be packaged at 28GHz and circulate to members requesting responses by end of January. Spectrum packaging at 28GHz and whether to opt for a comparative selection or auction will be discussed at the next meeting. Spectrum packaging at 40GHz would also be on the agenda. Action: Members

19. The Agency would circulate any papers produced by members to the group.

20. The minutes of these meetings would be available on the Agency Website www.radio.gov.uk.

21. The next meeting would be held on 14 February at 14.00 at Wyndham House.

Top

Annex A

 Top