Provisional Proposals For Licensing Broadband Fixed Wireless Access

Introduction

In looking at how spectrum for broadband fixed wireless access (BFWA) should be licensed the Agency has taken into account a number of factors that are central to the Government’s stated objectives for licensing these services, in particular:

	to secure the timely development of BFWA services throughout the UK;
	to utilise the available BFWA spectrum efficiently; and
	promote competition for the provision of broadband access services.

It has also taken into account the responses to the consultation document Wireless in the Information Age. There was a large and varied response but some of the key points were:

	28 GHz was the band for early development, with 40 GHz being developed over 2-3 years. Some respondents wished to see 28 GHz opened up without delay.
	At 28 GHz bandwidths of 56 MHz, 112 MHz and 224 MHz were variously suggested. There was also some support for the building block approach to allocations. At 40 GHz a bandwidth of 1 GHz was commonly suggested.
	There was a division over whether 28 GHz spectrum should be paired or unpaired.
	On geographical coverage of licences, there were many differences of detail but in general there was a need for a mix of national and regional licences.

The Agency has drawn up a number of options for achieving its objectives and would like to discuss these with industry and, subject to their views, develop them further.

In order to encourage the early development of services the Government intends to make licences available for 28 GHz by the summer of 2000 and for 40 GHz by the autumn. The early licensing of 28 GHz responds to industry’s concerns that some broadband spectrum should be made available as soon as possible. This will enable the UK to keep up with developments in the rest of Europe, to stimulate competition in the broadband market as a whole and to enable terrestrial wireless to compete for broadband business within the same time frame as the alternative broadband delivery mechanisms (xDSL, digital cable and interactive satellite). There is less urgency to develop the market at 40 GHz and by staggering the release of the band we will be able to devote more resources to the award of 28 GHz licences.

This timetable for awarding licences is challenging and one of the questions it raises is whether it gives all companies who might be interested in bidding for licences sufficient time to prepare. If it does not there is the danger that some companies who are well suited to develop services will be unable to put in bids.

There are numerous companies interested in obtaining licences and in order to satisfy their needs regional rather than national licences should be offered. This would also help encourage the development of services throughout the UK. Our initial thought is that the UK should be divided into between ten and twenty regions and territories. They might be modelled on the nine government office regions, plus Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. The nine regions are the North West, North East, Yorkshire and Humber, East Midlands, East of England, South West, South East, and London.

The band 27.5 – 29.5 GHz is the subject of a ERC/CEPT Recommendation T/R13-02E. This plan is based upon Frequency Division Duplex (FDD) and includes amongst others a raster for 28MHz channelisation. Based upon work ongoing within CEPT and ETSI, multiples of 28MHz would be a consistent basis for assignments in the 28GHz band.

ETSI equipment standards EN301-213 and EN301-215 (antennas) are virtually in place (Voting following P.E.) and stable. These standards are based upon operation within the existing channel plan.

CEPT has also carried out work focussed on both the 24.5-26.5GHz and 27.5-29.5GHz bands to examine some of the frequency assignment issues for FWA. This has resulted in a draft recommendation "Use of the band 24.5-26.5GHz for FWA" (SE19(99)131rev.6). A preliminary draft ERC Report is also under development "Report on the analysis of the co-existence of two FWA cells in the 24.5-29.5GHz bands" (SE19(99)131rev6). Since the existing channel plan and equipment standards for the 26GHz band are the same as those for the 28GHz band it would seem sensible to adopt similar approaches to assignment.

It is difficult to define a definitive frequency plan without scoping the activities in terms of operator numbers and licence regions. However the Agency has in mind the following spectrum engineering objectives in making frequency assignments:

	Maximising usable spectrum through minimising guard band requirements.
	Encouraging co-operation between operators to make use of potentially wasteful guard bands between assignments.
	Operators to co-ordinate their own stations within their network (Only inter-service issues may need to be referred to the Agency).
	Minimising the inter-operator co-ordination burden on operators through sensible licence area sizing and boundary positioning.
	Minimal guidelines on inter-operator co-ordination with the onus on operators to resolve issues through co-operation.

Attachment 1 illustrates some ways in which the frequencies and hence the licences might be packaged. All these to some greater or lesser extent meet some of the objectives and options above, are consistent with the channel plan and work carried out to date in the 26GHz band.

It is well known that there are unresolved sharing issues between Fixed Service use of the 28GHz band and the Fixed Satellite Service use of the same band. At best that part of the band covered by these proposals will remain unaffected and further tranches of the band could become available for assignment to FWA operators on a similar basis depending upon demand. In the worst case, sharing constraints could render the existing channel plan unusable requiring a new approach. This would of course introduce delays whilst new plans were developed with possible impact on equipment standards.

The 40 GHz band is less well defined than 28 GHz and a number of technology options exhibit diverse characteristics such as uplink and downlink symmetry, duplex spacing and duplex arrangement that make frequency planning difficult. The Agency is aware of standards development underway for equipment that exhibits variants of all these characteristics as well as being aware of other innovative approaches to the problem of providing mass broadband wireless access.

As in the 28GHz band CEPT has been tackling the issues surrounding the frequency plans for the 40GHz band. Current thinking is along the lines of an extremely flexible plan that is less directly tied to specific equipment channelisation compared to the 28GHz plan. It provides for relatively small units of spectrum that can be aggregated into licensed blocks in a number of different ways.

In order to maintain the "technical neutrality" aim the licensing approach for this band may need to be slightly different to that at 28GHz. For example, a two stage approach could be appropriate. In the first instance, a quantity of spectrum could be offered irrespective of any frequency plan in the band to a number of operators. Once again some decisions will be needed on an appropriate number of operators and regions which may impact the amount of spectrum offered. Work carried out under the auspices of the ETSI BRAN project could be drawn upon to help justify an appropriate amount of spectrum. Additionally, uncertainties over the success or otherwise of any particular approach to providing BFWA may suggest it appropriate not to assign the entire spectrum in the first instance, leaving room for future re-positioning and re-allocation as seen fit. Work is being carried out within ETSI to examine the spectrum requirements for BFWA and it may be useful to draw upon this work in deciding upon an appropriate amount of spectrum to offer.

Having awarded the spectrum to specific operators the second stage would involve drawing up a sensible frequency plan based upon the individual requirements of these operators and bearing in mind, the previously stated spectrum engineering objectives of the Agency.

In the first instance offer 800MHz each to an anticipated three operators on whatever regional/national basis is selected. Following award of "rights to spectrum" a frequency plan can be developed which might result in frequency plans like those given in attachment 2.

For both the 28GHz and 40GHz bands the successful co-existence of different operators within a single region in adjacent frequency blocks will need to be assured. The same is true for different operators operating co-frequency in neighbouring areas. In the first instance, suitable guard /co-operation bands will be needed provide the necessary protection. However the Agency is keen that through appropriate mitigation measures and co-operation unused guard band spectrum can be minimised. In the second case some form of service area boundary condition and "co-ordination zone" could provide a manageable cross border interference environment.

Preliminary work carried on behalf of the Agency suggests that co-ordination zones along service area boundaries in the region of 18 – 28km may be required, depending upon frequency band. However the Agency is keen to minimise the constraints brought about by co-ordination requirements and factors like licence boundary positioning and useful terrain features may need to be considered in the context of keeping the cross border co-ordination burden to a minimum.

As detailed in the consultation document there will be a need to some extent to respect the requirements of LDO’s that have rights of access to the 40.5-42.5GHz part of the band. This may lead to a requirement to make certain frequencies available to a LDO in a specific geographic location to avoid a co-frequency clash within a BFWA licensed region. Since it is likely that LDO equipment characteristics will be very similar to those for BFWA then deployment along both sides of an LDO boundary should be subject to the same inter-operator co-ordination requirements as above.

The need to protect Radio Astronomy services (RAs) in the band 42.5-43.5GHz will need to be taken into account in frequency planning. Current thinking is that exclusion zones around the RAs sites will be needed in which use of this band should be avoided.

RA

9 February, 2000

Attachment 1

Attachment 2

Two Examples of resultant 40GHz frequency band plans

Example 2:

1a Should frequency assignments at 28 GHz be consistent with the CEPT plan?

1b What is the optimum size for frequency assignments – 28, 56, 112 MHz or something else?

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?

1d Should the assigned spectrum be available for infrastructure links?

2a What is the optimum size for licence coverage areas?

2b What factors should be taken into account in defining areas?

3  At 40 GHz should the Agency be technology neutral in making assignments and flexible in making assignments best suited to licensees’ requirements?

Top