OTTAWA – Industry Canada should avoid prescriptive and burdensome licensing of high-capacity spectrum in the 70 GHz, 80 GHz and 90 GHz ranges, according to comments filed in response to Gazette Notice SMSE-010-11, the ministry’s request for comments on the spectrum utilization.
Companies submitting comments to the public notice suggest the department take a more light-handed approach to licensing the bandwidth and point to the “light licensing” method adopted in the U.K. and the U.S. as preferable. The comments come as Industry Canada continues to consider the best way to license spectrum in the 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz and 92-94 GHz ranges.
The spectrum which, unlike conventional digital cellular technology, has a narrow pencil-like beam to transit data in a fixed point-to-point configuration. It’s very well suited to the backhaul of needs of wireless carriers.
“The short-distance propagation properties, extremely directional main beam characteristics, and commercially available infrastructure capable of gigabit per second capacity make equipment in the bands very suitable for deployment in urban environments,” Rogers Communications says in its comments, adding that “it is a good alternative to fiber-based, last mile transport systems due to its relative cost and speed of deployment.”
Interveners say light licensing is appropriate because despite the chances of interference being minimal, it’s still important to ensure these links remains free from interference. The spectrum would also be licensed on a first come, first served basis.
“Although the risk of radiocommunication interference within these bands is low, the 70-80-90 GHz bands would support important high-capacity backhaul links and any impact due to harmful interference would be severe. As such, a licensed approach would facilitate co-ordination to protect important backhaul links from harmful interference,” states the Radio Advisory Board of Canada in its comments.
TeraGo Networks Inc. agrees with RABC.
“Licensing of this spectrum is required to mandate co-ordination and protection of network traffic against service disruptions from harmful interference,” it says, adding that a radio apparatus licensing approach would “cause undue administrative burden.”
The type of licensing would require the creation of a database to house all spectrum assignments so parties could see where spectrum is available. The database would also enable companies to work together to minimize interference between neighbouring systems. Industry Canada has proposed that a third-party manager of this database be created and that this company acquire all the spectrum in an auction and then license it on a cost recovery basis to companies wanting to use the bandwidth.
Parties weren’t so keen on this approach, the RABC among them.
“The introduction of a band manager, especially through spectrum auctions where the band manager must acquire spectrum through an auction, will certainly increase costs to a point well beyond administrative cost recovery,” says the RABC.
Rogers Communications agrees.
“The risk involved with the band manager charging fees to the licensees is that the band managers will seek to earn a profit by charging higher fees than would be applied to merely recover the cost of managing the spectrum,” the company writes.
Parties also suggest that the department adopt Ofcom’s – the UK spectrum regulator – approach to fees for this spectrum. Rogers notes that if fees are based on the current calculation, a 1 GHz backhaul link would have an annual fee of $13,456 or more than 650 times more than what Ofcom charges. This would make the spectrum an uneconomic candidate for broadband backhaul, says Rogers.
TeraGo suggests that until final determination is made with regard to the fees Industry Canada should waive them “so that operators may have timely access to the spectrum.”
Now the industry awaits the ministry’s decision.
