Spectrum Management in the field of Broadcasting

1. Spectrum Management in the field of Broadcasting Final Report Workshop Brussels, 30th June 2004

2. Terms of Reference General Overview of broadcasting and radio spectrum management in Europe Spectrum implications of digitalisation and convergence New approaches for better spectrum management Possibilities for co-ordinated EU Action

3. Agenda for the day Current Situation Broadcasting and Spectrum Management in Europe Market and Technology Trends Policy Approaches Policy objectives Administrative approaches Market-based approaches Our Recommendations Facilitating Switchover Maximising Opportunities Open Forum / Discussion

4. The Current Situation

5. European TV Broadcast Spectrum

6. Not all broadcast spectrum is currently used by broadcasters�

7. Digital Progress � the story so far

9. Planned Switchover Dates 2006: Finland, Italy 2007: Belgium, Denmark, Portugal 2008: Sweden 2010: France, Germany, UK 2012: Austria, Spain

10. Digital TV uses less spectrum per channel

11. The Digital Spectrum Dividend We estimate Digitalisation reduces spectrum required for today�s TV services by around 50 � 70% But, any spectrum dividend depends on factors such as: The number of TV channels Picture definition and quality Coding technology Coverage and reception mode

12. Multi-platform delivery may enhance the dividend in some cases Satellite and Cable reception now common-place in many Member States Analogue coverage obligations based on original �terrestrial-only� scenario Universal coverage implies more spectrum But is universal terrestrial coverage appropriate in a multi-platform world?

13. Who could use the spectrum dividend?-and how? Broadcasters More channels, new services Outside Broadcasts, Programme Making etc Mobile Operators voice, data, video, one-way, two-way? Who else? Fixed wireless access (Internet SPs etc) Emergency services ???

14. ...and who should decide? Broadcasters? It is broadcast spectrum so should they decide its future? Regulators? Generally responsible for spectrum allocation and assignment decisions in Member States The Market? market based assignment and allocation methods increasingly being used around the world

15. Market and Technology Evolution

16. Digitalisation creates opportunities but also adds to uncertainty� How will television evolve? How will digital technology evolve? How will the wider electronic communications market evolve?

17. TV Evolution

18. Digital Evolution

19. Market Evolution (1) Broadcast and Telecommunications were once distinct, vertical markets

20. Market Evolution (2) Digitalisation and convergence open up new, horizontal markets, with multiple delivery platforms for audiovisual content

21. Implications for Spectrum Demand is growing for mobile content �23 per cent [of UK mobile users] are definitely interested in owning a videophone� J D Power �by 2008, 250 million consumers will be using some form of mobile video� ARC Group Much of this will be streamed or �multicast� material Ideally suited to a digital �broadcast� platform

22. Delivering Mobile Content 3G mobile and DTT largely complementary optimum delivery platform depends on size of audience one to one (3G) or one to many (DTT) Mobile TV reception differs from Fixed small screens need much smaller bit rates but much greater resilience is required Providing good mobile reception of DVB-T needs a lot more spectrum � maybe as much as today�s analogue TV Is mobile reception best served by a �fixed� broadcast platform or does convergence provide a better solution?

23. The DVB-H Standard Based on DVB-T but optimised for mobility low power consumption; seamless handover Standard approved by ETSI / DVB Group Commercial DVB-H networks and services scheduled for 2005 Can be delivered over DVB-T multiplexes but works best in dedicated networks

24. Convergent wireless technologies require access to spectrum Without spectrum, convergence opportunities such as DVB-H may be foregone How can spectrum be made available to support such developments? The �Digital Dividend� provides one solution International initiatives to make spectrum management more flexible (e.g. ITU TWIMS) could also play a role

25. Can the current regime deliver? Some flexibility already exists within current ITU service definitions and the spectrum planning process ITU RR definition of broadcasting is wide in scope Allotment planning and �spectrum mask� concept (as agreed at RRC04) can accommodate many different services DTT technology can support convergent services Flexibility could be further helped by reviewing primary spectrum allocations �Spectrum Refarming� could either help or hinder, depending on how it is done

26. Spectrum Refarming � Pros and Cons �Re-farming� refers to change of use e.g. allow mobile transmissions in b/cast bands In principle, can support flexibility and facilitate convergence But, approach to re-farming should ensure existing flexibility is not compromised

27. Two approaches to re-farming: Use broadcast spectrum and technology to deliver multimedia content to mobile devices use existing planning approach and let market decide how spectrum dividend is used over time in each country Reflects growing demand for mobile multimedia content Use existing �return path� spectrum in other bands Use existing broadcast spectrum to deliver �conventional� mobile services main benefit of UHF frequencies is improved rural coverage but this needs exclusive �mobile� spectrum to ensure reliable return path could reduce flexibility overall �so need to be confident of market demand before taking this step

28. How interference constrains sharing

29. A comment on the FCC�s Approach FCC has proposed use of �spare� broadcast spectrum to support broadband wireless growth Strictly non-interference, non-protected basis (licence-exempt) Relies on �smart� radios to avoid interference Already feasible under ITU Regulations Note limitations of US Broadcast standard (especially mobility) and less intensive use of UHF bands compared with Europe

30. Spectrum management policies in the context of switchover

31. Policy questions to be addressed How should the timing of switchover be determined? How should the future use of spectrum be decided? How should the spectrum be assigned?

32. Policy objectives Optimal spectrum use � what does this mean? Economic, safety, health, social, public interest, freedom of expression, cultural, scientific and technical aspects Key broadcasting objectives affecting spectrum use are universality of core services and diversity (e.g. regional, content and linguistic diversity) Policy priorities will differ by country and these need to be accommodated But there are wider European considerations

33. Administrative policy approaches

34. Developing a cost-benefit framework The main challenge is valuing the additional TV and/or other new services Consumer experience or understanding of future services limited Individual versus societal values Whose views should count? Survey techniques aimed at gathering information on consumers� willingness to pay have been used for TV, mobile and new converged services Provides an evidence-based way forward

35. Administrative incentive pricing Seeking to set a �market� price to give incentives for efficient spectrum use Efficient spectrum use is promoted if all users pay Address general interest objectives through other mechanisms UK estimates � �1.5-2m/MHz

36. Market based approaches

37. Use of market approaches Offers incentives for efficient spectrum use and could speed up switchover Assumes general interest objectives met through reserved spectrum and other users have flexibility in spectrum use Could be implemented once interference environment agreed at RRC Could require national government intervention or industry co-ordination to ensure spectrum is released in useful blocks

38. Conclusions Beyond provision for existing �General Interest� services, the market should determine how the spectrum is used in the longer term Any approach to broadcast spectrum management should aim to maximise future flexibility of spectrum use

39. Conclusions Administrative approaches to determining the timing of switchover and the future allocation of the spectrum should involve cost-benefit analysis Market-based approaches to making switchover decisions offer flexibility and economic efficiency benefits, but may be assisted by some regulatory intervention

40. Our Recommendations Facilitating Switchover Maximising the Opportunities from Switchover and Convergence

41. 1 Benchmarking Opportunity for NRAs to identify and adopt good practice based on others� experience Annual benchmarking of progress towards switchover should be part of the e-Europe monitoring process Start by assessing Member States� compliance with the e-Europe Action Plan

42. 2 Cost Benefit Analyses Optimum timing of switchover depends on balance between costs and benefits These will vary between Member States, depending on local market conditions NRAs should undertake CBAs, informed by market research to establish user preferences and willingness to pay for various switchover and future use options

43. 3 Promoting Consumer Awareness Consumers should be properly informed of digital benefits when purchasing TV equipment A universal labelling scheme could be helpful in this context Could model on similar, successful initiatives such as energy-efficiency labels

44. 4 Spectrum Management Judicious application of new approaches, such as auctions, trading and administrative pricing could expedite switchover Financial incentives could also speed up transition process (within legal constraints) Spectrum Trading and Liberalisation (within interference management constraints) would support longer term flexibility in spectrum use

45. 5 Access to transmission capacity Spectrum release may not be possible pre-switchover Access to multiplex capacity would help with development of new convergent applications in the interim Longer term, a secondary market in transmission capacity seems viable

46. 6 Differentiating between General Interest and other broadcast services General Interest services historically have privileged access to spectrum, balanced by coverage / content obligations We suggest there is no case for applying such privileges to new, commercial services Where spectrum is required for new services or enhancements, it should be acquired in same way as for other users

47. 7 Spectrum Allocation Extension of primary allocation of broadcast spectrum to include mobile service should be pursued at WRC 07 RSPG should develop a position on TWIMS and implications of convergence for future approach to international spectrum allocations Undertake technical and market studies to clarify demand for bi-directional spectrum in UHF bands

48. 8 Facilitating New Services Opportunities exist for new, convergent services � compatible with existing planning regime But will depend on spectrum availability Recommend EU initiative (via CEPT) to make available at least eight frequency channels in each MS for new services, to be assigned on a market based, technology and service neutral basis

49. 9 Existing non-broadcast uses Where spectrum is scarce, alternative bands should be sought Non-civil use of broadcast spectrum should take account of opportunity cost of denial of spectrum to broadcast or other civil use Terms and conditions of non-broadcast use should be reviewed during transition phase to digital and migration plans developed where scarcity is anticipated

50. 10 International & Cross-sector co-operation Extend co-operation with non-EU countries on development of audiovisual and convergent services e.g. could include within remit of existing action plan for EU-Japanese co-operation Encourage co-operation between sectors and players in emerging horizontal markets content providers, network operators, equipment vendors etc

51. Thank You!