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

2. ©Ofcom1 An introduction to our proposals for SURs Background – The Spectrum Framework Review Selecting licence terms Associated issues Our Vision for Spectrum Management

3. ©Ofcom2 Ofcom’s Spectrum Management Agenda The Given: Fulfil our statutory duties The Ambition: Make the UK the leading country for wireless investment & innovation Ensure optimal use of the spectrum Take account of the needs of all spectrum users Maximise economic benefits of the spectrum 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. ©Ofcom3 There are three possible ways to manage spectrum Command & Control Zone Ofcom manages it Market Forces Zone Companies 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 C&C MF L-E

5. ©Ofcom4 The Market Forces Zone Allocation (what the best use is for the spectrum) Assignment (who the best user is of the spectrum) Existing spectrum: Trading between users “New” spectrum: Auctions Liberalisation Phase 1/2 Users ask Ofcom if they can change the use Liberalisation Phase 3 Technology-neutral spectrum usage rights to allow users to make the change without consulting Ofcom C&C MF L-E 20040%72%2010

6. ©Ofcom5 An introduction to our proposals for SURs Background – The Spectrum Framework Review Selecting licence terms Associated issues Our Vision for Spectrum Management

7. ©Ofcom6 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. ©Ofcom7 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. ©Ofcom8 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/m 2 /[reference bandwidth] at any height up to H m above local terrain for more than P% of the time

10. ©Ofcom9 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/m 2 /MHz for more than Y% of the time at more than Z% of locations in any area A km 2.

11. ©Ofcom10 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/m 2 /MHz for more than Y% of the time at more than Z% of locations in any area A km 2.

12. ©Ofcom11 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. ©Ofcom12 Summary of parameter proposals Aggregate In-band PFD at or beyond geographical boundary should not exceed X 1 dBW/m 2 /[reference bandwidth] at any height up to H m above local terrain for more than P % of the time X 1 = (based on sensitivity of services in neighbouring areas and any international agreements) H = 30m AGL P = 10% Out-of-band PFD at any point up to a height H m above ground level should not exceed X 2 dBW/m 2 /MHz for more than Y% of the time at more than Z% of locations in any area Akm 2. H = 30m AGL X 2 = (based on service and standard “mask” for most likely technology also may be multiple values for different separations from band edge) Y = 10% Z = 50% A = 3 km 2 In-band PFD at any point up to a height H m above ground level should not exceed X 3 dBW/m 2 /MHz for more than Y% of the time at more than Z% of locations in any area Akm 2. H = 30m AGL X 3 = (based on service and maximum transmit power of most likely technology) Y = 10% Z = 50% A = 3 km 2

14. ©Ofcom13 An introduction to our proposals for SURs Background – The Spectrum Framework Review Selecting licence terms Associated issues Our Vision for Spectrum Management

15. ©Ofcom14 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 Licenses are individual cells Licenses are areas Problem areas

16. ©Ofcom15 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. ©Ofcom16 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. ©Ofcom17 An introduction to our proposals for SURs Background – The Spectrum Framework Review Selecting licence terms Associated issues Our Vision for Spectrum Management

19. ©Ofcom18 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