1 / 19

Spectrum reform in the UK: The development of Spectrum Usage Rights

Spectrum reform in the UK: The development of Spectrum Usage Rights. Professor William Webb 2006. An introduction to our proposals for SURs. Background – The Spectrum Framework Review Selecting licence terms Associated issues Our Vision for Spectrum Management.

hedley-hewitt
Download Presentation

Spectrum reform in the UK: The development of Spectrum Usage Rights

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Spectrum reform in the UK:The development of Spectrum Usage Rights Professor William Webb 2006

  2. An introduction to our proposals for SURs • Background – The Spectrum Framework Review • Selecting licence terms • Associated issues • Our Vision for Spectrum Management

  3. Ofcom’s Spectrum Management Agenda The Given: Fulfil our statutory duties Ensure optimal use of the spectrum Take account of the needs of all spectrum users Maximise economic benefits of the spectrum The Ambition: Make the UK the leading country for wireless investment & innovation A better signposted approach to spectrum, giving more certainty in the market A flexible approach to spectrum, providing opportunity for innovation A competitive communications market, providing opportunity for returns on investment

  4. MF C&C L-E There are three possible ways to manage spectrum Command & Control ZoneOfcom manages it Market Forces ZoneCompanies manage it Licence-exempt Zone Nobody manages it Approach that is currently adopted for about 94% of the spectrum Approach advocated by Cave and implemented by trading and liberalisation Approach currently adopted for 6% of spectrum, some argue for radical increase • We need to decide the right balance between the Zones • Zones are currently demarcated by frequency. However, there are also dimensions of power and time

  5. MF C&C L-E The Market Forces Zone Allocation(what the best use is for the spectrum) Assignment(who the best user is of the spectrum) Liberalisation Phase 1/2Users ask Ofcom if they can change the use “New” spectrum:Auctions Existing spectrum:Trading between users Liberalisation Phase 3Technology-neutral spectrum usage rights to allow users to make the change without consulting Ofcom 2004 0% 72% 2010

  6. An introduction to our proposals for SURs • Background – The Spectrum Framework Review • Selecting licence terms • Associated issues • Our Vision for Spectrum Management

  7. The “liberalisation” problem • A change of use by a licence holder may change the interference experienced by neighbours in both geography and spectrum terms • How to allow maximum flexibility without increasing uncertainty for neighbours? • Should the balance be towards caution or flexibility?

  8. Our philosophy • A licence holder should not be adversely impacted by the actions of their neighbour unless • They agree • Or their neighbour has not taken up all their existing rights • The market is better able to determine optimal outcomes such as boundary conditions, than the regulator

  9. Geographical PFD • Limiting EIRP • Simple, but does not provide certainty because a large number of base stations could be deployed near boundaries • Coordinating deployments • Guaranteed not to cause unexpected interference but how to decide what the rights are when agreement can’t be reached? • Aggregate PFD limit at boundary • Provides complete certainty to neighbour, licence holder has to conduct modelling or measurement to understand impact on their deployment • Proposed licence term • The aggregate PFD at or beyond [definition of boundary] should not exceed X dBW/m2/[reference bandwidth] at any height up to H m above local terrain for more than P% of the time

  10. Out-of-band PFD • EIRP limit out of band • Currently used, but an increase in base station density increases interference levels • Technical coordination • Same issues as coordinating deployments • Use of a particular standard • Doesn’t meet the objectives of technical neutrality • PFD distribution across an area • Clearly defines probability of interference, although not actual locations where it will occur, difficult to measure but rights are clear • Proposed licence term • The OOB PFD at any point up to a height H m above ground level should not exceed XdBW/m2/MHz for more than Y% of the time at more than Z% of locations in any area A km2.

  11. In-band PFD • Broadly the same problem as out-of-band • Could ignore on the basis that better receiver filters could be deployed – but this risks higher interference • Or treat in the same manner as out-of-band • Proposed licence term • The IB PFD at any point up to a height H m above ground level should not exceed XdBW/m2/MHz for more than Y% of the time at more than Z% of locations in any area A km2.

  12. Indicative interference levels • A licence holder can work out the interference they can expect based on the sum of all the rights of neighbouring users plus noise floor and EMC-type emissions • This is not a “right” as such because of the vagaries of propagation • However, if they experience interference above this level they can investigate and call Ofcom if needed

  13. Summary of parameter proposals

  14. An introduction to our proposals for SURs • Background – The Spectrum Framework Review • Selecting licence terms • Associated issues • Our Vision for Spectrum Management

  15. Licenses are individual cells SURs work better in large areas • If a licence holder can expect interference in a particular area from more than one geographical neighbour then the allowed interference has to be divided among the neighbours – the “aggregation” problem • Difficult to do efficiently, and makes any subsequent negotiation more complex • If licences cover an area significantly larger than the coverage of a single transmitter then the chances of having more than one significant neighbour at any point is reduced • Equally, the value of changing licence parameters is likely larger for larger area licences • Therefore better to apply SURs to large area licences initially and then consider whether to cascade down Problem areas Licenses are areas

  16. Negotiating with neighbours • Determine geographical neighbours by propagation modelling – at least direct neighbours • Determine frequency neighbours by modelling, at least 250% of channel bandwidth from band edge • Up to those making the change to ensure they include all relevant neighbours

  17. Implementing within the current legal regime • If licence holders agree to a change in their boundary conditions they cannot currently make this change themselves • Licenses returned to Ofcom for approval, which will be forthcoming in most cases • In future consider changes to the legislation to allow licence holders to make these changes directly

  18. An introduction to our proposals for SURs • Background – The Spectrum Framework Review • Selecting licence terms • Associated issues • Our Vision for Spectrum Management

  19. The Ofcom Spectrum Vision • Spectrum should be free of technology, policy and usage constraints as far as possible • SURs are technology and usage neutral • It should be simple and transparent for licence holders to change the ownership and use of spectrum • SURs facilitate change of use • Rights of spectrum users should be clearly defined and users should feel comfortable that they will not be changed without good cause • SURs define rights more clearly than current licences

More Related