INTERNATIONAL FREQUENCY COORDINATION – FURTHER HARMONISATION IN UHF? Mark Thomas, Director ECO – Warsaw, 20 October

European Frequency Management Framework RSComm RSPG ‘EU Telecomms package’: Commission Parliament Council Radio Spectrum Policy Programme (RSPP) 2002 Radio Spectrum Decision Read more at 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 Source: ”The Naked Scientist” December Extrapolate with caution

Hard facts – the growth of mobile broadband Jul 2009Nov 2010 Feb 2008 Source: 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 MHz 900MHz GSM -> ECS Band (WAPECS) eventually 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 MHz 900MHz GSM -> ECS Band MHz 1800MHz GSM -> ECS band 150 MHz 2100 MHz IMT (-> ECS) 160 MHz 2600 MHz IMT (->ECS) 190 MHz 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 MHz (ECC Decision) Frequency planning and frequency coordination for terrestrial systems for Mobile Fixed Communications Networks in the frequency band MHz (ECC Recommendation) Rearrangement activities for broadcasting services in MHz (ECC Report) DVB-T performance in the presence of UMTS (ECC Report) CEPT Reports: Frequency (channeling) arrangements for the 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 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 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 MHz (ECC Decision) Frequency planning and frequency coordination for terrestrial systems for Mobile Fixed Communications Networks in the frequency band MHz (ECC Recommendation) Rearrangement activities for broadcasting services in MHz (ECC Report) DVB-T performance in the presence of UMTS (ECC Report) CEPT Reports: Frequency (channeling) arrangements for the 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 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 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 solution Consensual 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