IP Broadband Ltd

Radio Frequency Auction: 2.3 GHz and 2.5 GHz Bands

Discussion Paper

Radio Spectrum Policy and Planning
Energy and Communications Branch
Ministry of Economic Development

September 2007

Response from:

IP Broadband Limited (“IPB”)
2/40 Tawera Road, Greenlane
Auckland 1051

Responder:

John Humphrey
John.humphrey@ip-broadband.net
+64 21 555-933
+64 9 522-2138

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS

Question 1: Considerations Relating to Lot Design

Do you agree with the considerations discussed in this chapter concerning lot design?
Please provide any comments under the following headings:

a. Expected technical developments and likely demand.

b. Size and location of the managed spectrum park or parks, including:

• whether two MSPs should be provided for in the 2.5 GHz band in order to allow forFDD (including CMAR) uses.

c. Acquisition limits.

d. Technical issues such as:

• accommodating TDD and FDD technologies;
• guard-bands;
• other.

e. Preferences regarding auction type.

f. Other.

Response:

a. Comments:

i. With WiMAX, the 2.3 GHz and 2.5 GHz bands are likely to be the most important. The allocation of 30 MHz spectrum blocks per service provider follows the WiMAX Forum recommendation for efficient Mobile WiMAX technology implementation.

ii. IMT technology will use FDD technology, requiring paired blocks of at least 15 MHz and separation of 120 MHz between transmit and receive frequencies. IMT 2000 will therefore need to be allocated spectrum on the 2.5 GHz band as there is insufficient bandwidth on the 2.3 GHz band.

iii. CMAR uses FDD technology but the requirements on bandwidth or the separation between transmit and receive frequencies is unknown. If it has similar requirements to IMT 2000, it may be able to make use of the MSPs in the 2.5 GHz spectrum band. If CMAR is a proprietary technology, IPB recommends that the 2.3 or 2.5 GHz bands are not used for CMAR and a “non-standard” spectrum band is allocated for CMAR such as 1098.

iv. The 2.5 GHz band is designated for primary use by the ITU for IMT-2000 technologies. The WiMAX Forum is creating a set of specifications for both spectrum emission masks and spurious emission masks. These masks have been designed to be compatible with other IMT-2000 technologies to allow WiMAX equipment to be deployed in the same bands as other IMT-2000 systems. It is unclear what technologies are being used to provide Point to Point Services for telecommunications backhaul services as well as broadcast and electronic newsgathering services in remote areas. IPB believes that the 2.3 GHz and 2.5 GHz spectrum should be kept for standard technologies and the 2.3 GHz is allocated for Mobile WiMAX while the 2.5 GHz is allocated to both LTE and Mobile WiMAX. IPB believes that non-standard technologies should not be deployed in these bands.

b. IPB supports the idea of the Managed Spectrum Parks (MSPs). It is likely that the MSPs will be used primarily in under-served areas. As such, the proposed 75 MHz allowance may be too large in New Zealand. IPB considers that an allocation of 50 MHz would be enough spectrum for MSPs.

c. IPB considers that the proposed 35 MHz acquisition limit and the provision of MSPs will encourage competition.

d. Comments:

• IPB proposes that the 2.3 GHz band is allocated for TDD usage only.
• IPB supports the WiMAX Forum in its 'technology neutral' approach. This approach encourages regulators to leave the licensing rules and band plans as loose as possible, pushing the responsibility for interoperability and coexistence to the operators.
• The WiMAX Forum is creating a set of specifications for both spectrum emission masks and spurious emission masks. These masks will allow Mobile WiMAX solutions meeting standard certification to co-exist in adjacent lots without additional guard bands. These masks have also been designed to be compatible with other IMT-2000 technologies, to allow WiMAX equipment to be deployed in the same bands as other IMT-2000 systems. However, adequate guard bands will be required to prevent interference to and from other systems on adjacent bands.

e. IPB does not have any comment on the spectrum allocation methodology.

Question 2: Proposed Lot Design

Do you prefer Option A, B or C for the lot design? Please explain why.

If you prefer Option C is your preference for C(i) or C(ii)? Why?

If there is an alternative option you prefer please specify it and explain why it would be preferable.

Response:

IPB recommends that the 2.3 GHz band is allocated for the deployment of Mobile WiMAX networks only. IPB suggests the provision of 3 equal lots of 30 MHz, using the upcoming WiMAX Forum standards for spectrum emission masks and spurious emission masks to allow services to exist in adjacent lots without the need for additional guard bands. Allowance should be made for a 5 MHz guard band between allocated lots and the 4 MHz band at 2396 MHz to 2400 MHz.

In the 2.5 GHz band, IPB prefers Option C (i).

Question 3: Māori Interests

What provision should be made regarding allocation of spectrum in the 2.3 GHz and 2.5 GHz bands for use by Māori (i.e. Māori service providers)?

What provision should be made regarding allocation of spectrum in the 2.3 GHz and 2.5 GHz bands for use for Māori (i.e. Māori as service consumers, or in the interests of Māori language and culture)?

What terms and conditions should apply to this spectrum?

Response:

IPB suggests that sufficient spectrum is available via the auction process in the general lots and in the MSPs and that no special allocation is required.

Question 4: Eligibility to Bid

Do you agree that no restrictions should be placed on the eligibility of parties to bid for lots?

Response:

IPB recommends that no party wanting to deploy broadband wireless networks should be excluded from bidding. Each auction lot winner should be allocated a maximum amount of spectrum (e.g 30 or 35 MHz) and each winner should have to make use of the spectrum within a minimum period of time. This will avoid the situation existing in other bands where a party acquires spectrum to limit or control competition and does not use it. IPB also recommends that a winner of a nationwide license has to use this license on a nationwide basis.

Question 5: Duration of Acquisition Limits

Do you consider the expiry of acquisition limits 1 year before the (December) use or lose date to be satisfactory? Do you prefer a different acquisition limit date? Please explain reasons for your view? Do you have any other comments on the time for acquisition limits to expire?

Response:

IPB considers that the proposed acquisition limit is reasonable.

Question 6: Use or Lose Provisions

Do you prefer a date of December 2012, 2014, or 2106, for applying the use or lose test?

If not what alternative date would you prefer to implement the Cabinet decisions on use or lose? Please explain.

Do you prefer Option A or Option B or some other option regarding the test for ‘use’?

If you do not agree with the proposals, what ‘use or lose’ provisions do you propose?

Should financial consequences result from not using rights, either in addition or as an
alternative to loss? How should the amount of any financial consequence be calculated?

Response:

IPB recommends that the 2.3 GHz band spectrum is allocated for the exclusive use of Mobile WiMAX. A December 2012 date for Use or Lose Provision is reasonable. The 2.5 GHz band is more complex and an extended date for the Use or Lose Provision may be necessary (December 2014?) depending on the clearance of usage of the band by existing users.

IPB prefers Option A for the “test” of use.

Question 7: Settlement

Do you agree with the proposed settlement terms (30 days following completion of the
auction)? If not, what other factors do you see as relevant?

Response:

IPB supports the proposed settlement terms.

Question 8: Managed Spectrum Parks: Proposed Allocation Procedures andUsage Rules

a. Do you agree with the suggested eligibility criteria for access to a MSP?

b. Do you agree with the suggested core technical and usage requirement?

c. Of the three options outlined above, which is your preferred method for implementing a MSP? Why?

d. Are there better alternatives or variations on these implementation options?

e. What incentives for gaming arise under the various options, and what measures, if
any, could be taken to minimise such incentives?

f. What fees or resource charges should be levied (particularly for your preferred
option)?

Response:

a. IPB recommends that MSPs should only be made available to parties who do not
already own spectrum rights or who do not have an interest in parties who already
own spectrum rights.

b. IPB suggests the use of “beauty contests”.

c. IPB recommends that standard technologies (such as Mobile WiMAX or Fixed
WiMAX) only are allowed to be used in the MSPs.

d. IPB recommends that MSPs are only catered for in the 2.5 GHz band.

Question 9: Transition Plan for the 2.5 GHz Band

Do you have any comments on the proposed transition plan for existing licences in the 2.5 GHz band?

Response:

IPB recommends as speedy a transition as possible is undertaken. IPB is particularly
concerned that existing equipment could be used for up to five years for the initial purchase date. Our experience is that there is analogue equipment in use in this band which can swamp large amounts of spectrum in the band during transmission and render usage of other transmission and reception equipment impossible. IPB recommends that all existing equipment in use in the 2.5 GHz band be disallowed for use from the date of first use of the band by any one of the auction winners. This could be as early as December 2008.