Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
INTERNATIONAL FREQUENCY COORDINATION – FURTHER HARMONISATION IN UHF?
Mark Thomas, Director ECO – Warsaw, 20 October 2011
www.cept.org/eco
European Frequency Management Framework
• RSComm
• RSPG
‘EU Telecomms package’:
CommissionParliamentCouncilRadio SpectrumPolicy Programme(RSPP)
2002 Radio Spectrum Decision
Read more athttp://apps.cept.org/eccetsirel/
Role of the ECC in Europe
Consensus and voluntary character:
flexible instrument of the national administrations
• Technical expertise• EU mechanisms recognise that most regulatory
responsibilities are applied at a national level (European Commission focuses on single market issues)
• Range of subjects: ‘high profile’ and ‘low profile’:
…all are important• Geographical reach
Heartbreak total
2000
2019
1976
Source: ”The Naked Scientist” December 2000
170 85000
2 600 000 000
Extrapolate with caution
Hard facts – the growth of mobile broadband
Jul 2009 Nov 2010Feb 2008Source: internal PT1 report, Sept 2011
Projected demand for mobile broadband spectrum
Report 44 (January 2011) says:
• Video and streaming is the dominant source of traffic volume
• ”Small cells and femto cells are the solutions of choice for increasing network capacity”
• Expected Cellular traffic increase: about 10x up to 2015,about 30x up to 2020
(including traffic managed by femtocells, but not wi-fi ‘off-loading’)
Existing harmonised bands for mobile broadband
800 MHz Digital Dividend up to 60-65 MHz
900MHz GSM -> ECS Band (WAPECS) eventually 50-70 MHz
1800MHz GSM -> ECS band (WAPECS) eventually 150 MHz
2.0 GHz IMT (-> ECS) 160 MHz
2.6 GHz IMT (->ECS) 190 MHz
Foreseen harmonised bands for mobile broadband
800 MHz Digital Dividend up to 60-65 MHz
900MHz GSM -> ECS Band 50-70 MHz
1800MHz GSM -> ECS band 150 MHz
2100 MHz IMT (-> ECS) 160 MHz
2600 MHz IMT (->ECS) 190 MHz
3.4-3.6-3.8 BWA -> mobile 400 MHz
(RSPP amendment from Eur. Parliament: ”more UHF at 700 MHz.....”; ”find 1200 MHz bandwidth.......”) debate ongoing
Different frequencies, different characteristics, same service
• GSM started at 900 MHz,(Council Directive 87/372/EEC of 25 June 1987)
• But 1800 MHz frequency range needed to provide capacity and competition
• Despite smaller cell size and inferior building penetration, networks grew at 1800 MHz where the market demanded it
Digital Dividend
A controversial concept in 2006
• RRC06 was for broadcasting;• ‘Clause 42’ opened the door• Some saw Digital Dividend as not implementable in
Europe.• Others saw once-in-lifetime opportunity; economics of
scale for new services
Making the Digital Dividend an efficient and pratical reality
• Numerous deliverables:• Harmonised conditions for MFCN in the band 790-862 MHz (ECC Decision)• Frequency planning and frequency coordination for terrestrial systems for Mobile Fixed Communications
Networks in the frequency band 790-862 MHz (ECC Recommendation)• Rearrangement activities for broadcasting services in 790 - 862 MHz (ECC Report)• DVB-T performance in the presence of UMTS (ECC Report)
• CEPT Reports:• Frequency (channeling) arrangements for the 790-862 MHz band”
(Task 2 of the 2nd Mandate to CEPT on the digital dividend) • The identification of common and minimal (least restrictive) technical conditions for 790 - 862 MHz for the digital
dividend in the European Union• Guideline on cross border coordination issues between mobile services in one country and broadcasting services
in another country• Continuation of PMSE operating in the UHF, including the assessment of the advantage of an EU approach • Technical Roadmap proposing relevant technical options and scenarios to optimise the Digital Dividend • Feasibility of fitting new applications/services into "white spaces" of the digital dividend • Technical Options for the Use of a Harmonised Sub-Band in the Band 470 - 862 MHz for Fixed/Mobile
Application (including Uplinks) • Technical Feasibility of Harmonising a Sub-band of Bands IV and V for Fixed/Mobile Applications (including
uplinks) • Compatibility between “cellular / low power transmitter” networks and “larger coverage / high power / tower”
networks • Least restrictive technical conditions for WAPECS frequency bands
European framework delivers opportunity
• autumn 2006: ECC sets up ‘Task Group 4’ to think the unthinkable
• April 2008: Commisson mandate
• 6 May 2010: EC Decision on Digital Dividend
o Uses ECC work on technical investigation of feasibility, least restrictive conditions.
o The Radio Spectrum Decision in action for European harmonisation to bring citizen benefit
Multilateral and bilateral relations were essential then
Regional Radio Conference 2006 (RRC06)
Practical plan needed bilateral negotiations and multilateral preparation:
• ITU Regional preparation framework
• CEPT Conference preparation
• Regional groups: e.g. {G, F, BEL, LUX, HOL, D, SUI}.
• Bilateral negotiations
.
Multilateral and bilateral relations are essential now
• RRC06: principle of “equitable access”
Much of the GE06 plan needs to be renegotiated to achieve equity in the reduced size of band
• Other legacy systems: ARNS
TV Channel:
in remaining in the broadcast band digital .
dividend band
: 20 km < 400 km
So where next?
• Numerous deliverables:• Harmonised conditions for MFCN in the band 790-862 MHz (ECC Decision)• Frequency planning and frequency coordination for terrestrial systems for Mobile Fixed Communications
Networks in the frequency band 790-862 MHz (ECC Recommendation)• Rearrangement activities for broadcasting services in 790 - 862 MHz (ECC Report)• DVB-T performance in the presence of UMTS (ECC Report)
• CEPT Reports:• Frequency (channeling) arrangements for the 790-862 MHz band”
(Task 2 of the 2nd Mandate to CEPT on the digital dividend) • The identification of common and minimal (least restrictive) technical conditions for 790 - 862 MHz for the digital
dividend in the European Union• Guideline on cross border coordination issues between mobile services in one country and broadcasting services
in another country• Continuation of PMSE operating in the UHF, including the assessment of the advantage of an EU approach • Technical Roadmap proposing relevant technical options and scenarios to optimise the Digital Dividend • Feasibility of fitting new applications/services into "white spaces" of the digital dividend • Technical Options for the Use of a Harmonised Sub-Band in the Band 470 - 862 MHz for Fixed/Mobile
Application (including Uplinks) • Technical Feasibility of Harmonising a Sub-band of Bands IV and V for Fixed/Mobile Applications (including
uplinks) • Compatibility between “cellular / low power transmitter” networks and “larger coverage / high power / tower”
networks • Least restrictive technical conditions for WAPECS frequency bands
Digital Dividend is a great achievement so far.
Significant implementation issues remain
The next steps for mobile broadband ?
The digital dividend we know (790 – 892 MHz)
‘low hanging fruit’ (if there ever was any)
Three initial questions
• Are you ready to reduce or drop Terrestrial TV; if so, when, and by how much?
• Do you think that technological progress is a myth ?
• Do you know how many Elvis Presley impersonators there will there be in 2019 ?
Three of the most difficult questions
• ‘Digital Dividend 2’ = what future for terrestrial television, beyond the safe rhetoric of ‘let’s do everything’?
• The potential of ‘white space’ and use of cognitive radio
• Low use so far of higher frequency bands for mobile broadband. Really, why?
Digital Dividend 2?
Is this the next step?
Is it practical ?
What are the consequences?
What are the alternatives?
What is the true demand ?
Is it possible?
There is no single solutionConsensual approach needed with all parties
Summary
• We have achieved a lot already with the Digital Dividend and other initiatives
• Demand for mobile broadband will increase dramatically, but by how much?
• How governments and regulators signal intentions influences operator behaviour
• The second digital dividend would be much harder to achieve than the first
Conclusions – ”700 MHz”
• The potential further use of UHF frequencies on the conventionally planned and licensed model must be considered but..
• the potential further use of UHF frequencies must not be considered in isolation
• The role of white space cognitive systems in UHF must also be considered;(more of an alternative than a complement)
• A proper framework will take time to study
Conclusions – mobile broadband
• We have a lot of work to do across a range of technologies, frequencies and legal frameworks
• There is no single solution
• European level actions should be ambitious but flexible about how they develop: ‘more of the same’ is not always successful
• Delivery requires full commitment by all parties; bilateral and national approaches are an essential part of the equation
www.cept.org/eco
