1. April 2009
doc.: IEEE /xxxxr0
January 2018
Ofcom Fixed Wireless Spectrum Strategy Consultation Questions and Answers
Date: 18 January 2018
Authors:
Jay Holcomb (Itron)
Rich Kennedy, Research In Motion

2. April 2009
doc.: IEEE /xxxxr0
January 2018
Abstract
This presentation is intended to be the collection point for answers to the Ofcom Fixed Wireless Spectrum Strategy consultation questions.
The current revision includes the text approved by during the 16/18 January 2018 meeting in Irvine, CA.
Also included at the end of the deck are the instructions for filing the responses with Ofcom. The filing deadline is 01 February 2018 at 5:00pm UTC
R2 was approved by ; R3 editing and highlights the final answers to the questions
Questions 1, 9, 10 and 11 do not apply to 802 wireless standards, so no answers are offered
Jay Holcomb (Itron)
Rich Kennedy, Research In Motion

3. Ofcom Fixed Wireless Spectrum Strategy Consultation
April 2009
doc.: IEEE /xxxxr0
January 2018
Ofcom Fixed Wireless Spectrum Strategy Consultation
Consultation on proposed next steps to enable future uses of fixed wireless links
We recently gathered information on how the uses of fixed wireless links could change over the next 5-10 years. This document summarises our key findings and consults on specific areas which focus on enabling ultra-high capacity wireless backhaul requirements for the future.
Fixed wireless links are used to provide wireless connectivity for a range of uses such as mobile backhaul, utility services, broadcasting and financial networks using a range of spectrum bands.
Jay Holcomb (Itron)
Rich Kennedy, Research In Motion

4. April 2009
doc.: IEEE /xxxxr0
January 2018
Consultation – cont.
In light of stakeholder responses, we are now consulting on specific areas that would enable evolved uses of fixed wireless links. With capacity requirements set to increase significantly, particularly as new technologies and networks evolve towards 5G, greater focus is now being placed on the higher millimetre wave bands to deliver this capacity. In order to start this discussion, this document explores new potential spectrum above 92 GHz.
The document consults on changing the authorisation regime in the 64 – 66 GHz band to licence exempt and seeks views on a revised technical condition across the GHz, commonly known as V band, in order to enable new fixed wireless access use cases. We are also seeking views on the adjacent GHz band given that it could be part of the same ecosystem as V band.
This consultation closes on 1 February 2018.
Jay Holcomb (Itron)
Rich Kennedy, Research In Motion

5. Consultation Question 1
January 2018
Consultation Question 1
Question 1:
Do you agree that we have identified the key drivers likely to have a significant impact on the spectrum demand for fixed wireless links? If not, please provide further detail and evidence to support your answer.
Tues: We agree with them.
Rev1a and Ad Hoc: Though no need to answer this one.
Do you have other comments to make/points to raise with us on these issues?
Tues: Should add some.
Final comment for Q1: no answer
Jay Holcomb (Itron)

6. Consultation Question 2
January 2018
Consultation Question 2
Question 2:
Do you agree with our conclusions on spectrum implications and our proposed strategy/next steps for each band?
Tues: Depends on what Ofcom is thinking on 6GHz, hard for us to answer.
Need to review consultation text more. We may not agree with them.
Rev1a: 6 GHz – we support the work of ECC CEPT SE45 and FM57, but would prefer a study of the full 5925 MHz to 7125 MHz;
60 GHz – in support of IEEE ad and P802.11ay, we want to see the full 57 GHz to 71 GHz available for license-exempt sharing, so an IMT designation would inhibit global harmonization.
Information: the # of 1.4GHz users is 299 total with < 20MHz BW.
Ad Hoc: 6 GHz - We support the work of ECC CEPT SE45 and FM57 and agree with the view that the international co-existence studies will first need to be completed to understand the feasibility of sharing of all existing services active in this band, e.g. IEEE UWB, and new services before any decision on the 5925 MHz to 7125 MHz band.
60 GHz – In support of IEEE ad and P802.11ay, we want to see the full 57 GHz to 71 GHz available for license-exempt sharing, so an IMT-2020 designation would inhibit global harmonization.
Final comment Q2: see next slide
Jay Holcomb (Itron)

7. Consultation Question 2
January 2018
Consultation Question 2
Question 2, cont.:
Are there any other considerations of significance that you feel we should have included or do you have other comments to make/points to raise with us on these issues? Please provide as much detail as possible to support your answer.
Tues: Will come out of reviewing consolation text more.
Final comment Q2:
6 GHz - We support the work of ECC CEPT SE45 and FM57 and agree with the view that the international co-existence studies will first need to be completed to understand the feasibility of sharing of all existing services active in this band (e.g., IEEE UWB) and new services before any decision on the 5925 MHz to 7125 MHz band can be made.
60 GHz – In support of IEEE ad and P802.11ay, we want to see the full 57 GHz to 71 GHz available for license-exempt sharing, and we believe an IMT-2020 designation would inhibit global harmonization.
Jay Holcomb (Itron)

8. Consultation Question 3
January 2018
Consultation Question 3
Question 3:
Do you agree with the items we’ve identified for further consideration?
Tues: Need to review consultation text.
Rev1a and Ad Hoc: There is a need for additional review and discussion of the GHz and GHz bands. We support  enabling alternative fixed wireless topologies, e.g. point to multipoint, mesh, and other as mobile applications.
Are there any other significant areas that you believe should be included? If so, please include all necessary evidence to support your view.
Need to review consultation text.
Final comment Q3: There is a need for additional review and discussion of the GHz and GHz bands. We support  enabling alternative fixed wireless topologies, point to multipoint, mesh, and others as mobile applications.
Jay Holcomb (Itron)

9. Consultation Question 4
January 2018
Consultation Question 4
Question 4:
Do you agree with our proposal to change the authorisation regime in the 64 – 66 GHz band to licence exempt to create a common authorisation approach across the 57 – 66 GHz band for fixed outdoor installation use and that this would be a benefit to UK citizens and consumers?
Tues: Yes, scale in ay.
Rev1a and Ad Hoc: IEEE 802 supports the Ofcom proposal to relax the existing minimum antenna gain requirement of 30 dBi to 20 dBi and to remove the maximum output power limitation.
Final comment Q4: IEEE 802 supports the Ofcom proposal to relax the existing minimum antenna gain requirement of 30 dBi to 20 dBi and to remove the maximum output power limitation.
Jay Holcomb (Itron)

10. Consultation Question 5
January 2018
Consultation Question 5
Question 5:
Do you agree with the proposed new technical conditions in Table 6 to facilitate equipment intended for fixed outdoor installation in the 57 – 66 GHz band? Please provide evidenced views /alternatives if you disagree with our proposal. Do you consider any additional conditions should be mandated as part of a licence exemption to manage the interference environment?
Tues: We need to look at what the ECC is doing and align with others.
Rev1a and Ad Hoc: we support the proposed Ofcom revisions
b) Do you agree with our assessment that the proposed changes in technical conditions will have minimal impact on existing use and are appropriate to manage the future outdoor interference environment?
Tues: _p/o above__
Rev1a and Ad Hoc: we support the proposed relaxation in technical conditions for SRDs
Final comment Q5: We support the proposed Ofcom revisions, including the relaxation in the technical conditions for SRDs.
Jay Holcomb (Itron)

11. Consultation Question 5
January 2018
Consultation Question 5
Question 5, cont.:
c) Are there likely to be any fixed outdoor installation use cases that will require operation at eirp levels above 55 dBm? If so, please provide evidence of how the coexistence with the different outdoor users could be ensured?
Tues: _n/a_
Rev1a: no need to comment
Final comment Q5: see previous slide
Jay Holcomb (Itron)

12. Consultation Question 6
January 2018
Consultation Question 6
Question 6:
What are the use cases and technical parameters envisaged for the GHz band? Are they likely to be similar to those in the 57 – 66 GHz band? If so, what are your views on extending the same or similar technical conditions as described above for the GHz band (both existing wideband data transmission (SRD) and new fixed outdoor technical conditions) to the 66 – 71 GHz band to facilitate both fixed and mobile use cases.
Tues: See ac / ad.
Rev1a and Ad Hoc: We agree that these bands will be significant for 5G, but believe that an IMT designation will only hinder the potential applications and services on a global basis. [there is a use case need here. Edward can help with that.]
Final comment Q6: see next slide
Jay Holcomb (Itron)

13. Consultation Question 6
January 2018
Consultation Question 6
Question 6 cont.:
b) Please provide your view on whether the technical parameters of wideband data transmission (SRD) as shown in Figure 4 are suitable to facilitate mobile/portable equipment including use outdoor? If you do not consider they are suitable, what alternative technical parameters do you think should be considered? Please provide as much detail to your answer as possible and your considerations on the co-existence aspects.
Tues: We can explain why we need the spectrum, talk to someone from ay (Edward) to get some details.
Rev1a and Ad Hoc: Input from Edward. We can support this and agree with Ofcom.
Final comment Q6: We agree that these bands will be significant for 5G, but believe that an IMT designation will only hinder the potential applications and services on a global basis. We also agree Figure 4 is suitable to facilitate mobile/portable equipment including use outdoor.
Refer to the following IEEE P802.11ay Use Case document for examples, e.g. Use Case #7.
Jay Holcomb (Itron)

14. Consultation Question 7
January 2018
Consultation Question 7
Question 7:
Do you agree that there is a continued need for future low capacity fixed link applications?
Tues: Yes - command and control.
Rev1a: We believe that moving the 1.4 GHz band fixed links to the 6 GHz band presents a problem for IEE ax in the 6 GHz band, and that these narrow band services could benefit from the use of higher gigahertz bands. [needs discussion.]
Ad Hoc: Relocating the current 26 MHz of 1.4 GHz users to MHz, will have minimal impact on proposed 6 GHz band.
If so, please provide information to support your view and what alternatives you would consider appropriate should the upper 1.4 GHz band no longer be available. Please provide clear evidence to support the reasons for your views.
Tues: We want to understand how the 1.4 GHz users would be placed into the 6GHz band, and understand their use cases. Need to remember these are fixed links
Rev 1a: No answer here
Final comment Q7: Relocating the current 26 MHz of 1.4 GHz users to MHz or MHz, will have minimal impact on proposed 6 GHz band.
Jay Holcomb (Itron)

15. Consultation Question 8
January 2018
Consultation Question 8
Question 8:
Do you consider there is merit in considering making the bands 52 GHz and 55 GHz available under alternative authorisation approach(es)such as block assignment? If so, what would you consider to be the best approach(es)? Please provide detailed views to support your response.
Tues: China aj, has bands near here.
How it is used or will be used in the future globally needs to be considered. If all of the EU could be enough justification even if not in NAM.
What about adjacent bands in other countries?
Rev1a and Ad Hoc: we have no projects in these bands, so no comment is necessary.
Final comment Q8: No comment
Jay Holcomb (Itron)

16. Consultation Question 9
January 2018
Consultation Question 9
Question 9:
Do you think we should review our authorisation approach to any other band used for fixed wireless links?
Tues: Yes, can make comments on this.
Rev1a and Ad Hoc: we have no projects in these bands, so no comment is necessary.
Final comment Q9: No comment
Jay Holcomb (Itron)

17. Consultation Question 10
January 2018
Consultation Question 10
Question 10:
How do you envisage W band and D band will be used for mobile backhaul provision and the likely timescales? Please provide as much detail as possible on deployment scenarios and whether this would include indoor use. Are there any other types of applications (other than mobile backhaul) that could be suited for these bands?
Tues: _n/a__
Rev1a and Ad Hoc: No comment.
b) What are your views on the most appropriate authorisation approach for the W and D bands? Please provide as much detail and technical evidence as possible in your answer.
Final comment Q10: No comment
Jay Holcomb (Itron)

18. Consultation Question 11
January 2018
Consultation Question 11
Question 11:
Which capacity enhancing technique(s) are you using or planning to use?
Tues: Yes, we can have something for this. (e.g. bandwidth, phase noise, …..)
Rev1a and Ad Hoc: No comment.
Please provide detail / evidence and clearly explain why and how each technique is planned to be used and if you consider there are any other aspects that should be considered.
_p/o above_
Final comment Q11: No comment
Jay Holcomb (Itron)

19. Instructions for Filing
January 2018
Instructions for Filing
We strongly prefer to receive responses via the online form at
“Basic details” questions must be answered
The slides contain the questions and comments. Final Comments to be copied and pasted into the online form in the appropriate boxes (omitting the question and supporting text from the slide)
Enter the “Spam prevention” code and click “Submit”
Jay Holcomb (Itron)