International Frequency Coordination - Further Harmonisation

Report
INTERNATIONAL FREQUENCY COORDINATION –
FURTHER HARMONISATION IN UHF?
Mark Thomas, Director ECO – Warsaw, 20 October 2011
[email protected]
www.cept.org/eco
European Frequency Management Framework
•
RSComm
•
RSPG
‘EU Telecomms
package’:
Commission
Parliament
Council
Radio Spectrum
Policy Programme
(RSPP)
2002 Radio Spectrum
Decision
Read more at
http://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
Extrapolate with caution
2 600 000 000
2019
170
1976
85000
2000
Source: ”The Naked
Scientist” December 2000
Hard facts – the growth of mobile broadband
Feb 2008
Jul 2009
Nov 2010
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
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”
TV Channel:
in remaining
broadcast band
.
in the
digital
dividend band
Much of the GE06 plan needs to be renegotiated to achieve equity
in the reduced size of band
• Other legacy systems: ARNS
: 20 km < 400 km
So where next?
Numerous
Digital• Dividend
is adeliverables:
great achievement so far.
•
•
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)
Significant
implementation issues remain
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
CEPT Reports:
Frequency (channeling) arrangements for the 790-862 MHz band”
(Task next
2 of thesteps
2nd Mandate
CEPT on the digital dividend)
The
for tomobile
The identification of common and minimal (least restrictive) technical conditions for 790 - 862 MHz for the digital
broadband
?
dividend in the European
Union
Guideline on cross border coordination issues between mobile services in one country and broadcasting services
in another country
The
digital
dividend
know
Continuation
of PMSE
operatingwe
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
(790
– 892 MHz)
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)
‘low
hanging
(if there
everof Bands IV and V for Fixed/Mobile Applications (including
Technical
Feasibility fruit’
of Harmonising
a Sub-band
uplinks)
was
any)
Compatibility between “cellular / low power transmitter” networks and “larger coverage / high power / tower”
networks
Least restrictive technical conditions for WAPECS frequency bands
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?
Is it possible?
What are the alternatives?
What is the true demand ?
Consensual approach
needed with all parties
There is no single solution
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
[email protected]
www.cept.org/eco

similar documents