Ministry of Economic Development Home
Header Image Enlarge +
Sugarloaf (Canterbury) TOPO50: BX24 717.00 720.91 WGS84: 172.6493385E 43.6036162S
Document Actions

Option three – expressions of interest with user-defined licence specifications





Type of licence Radio or Spectrum Licence
Permitted technologies Not specified initially
Specified following allocation process: see below
Number of licences Not specified initially
Specified following allocation process: see below
Area of licences Not specified initially
Specified following allocation process: see below
Eligibility criteria Core eligibility criteria (see earlier para)
Must meet application requirements noted below
Technical and usage rules Core technical and usage rules (see earlier para)
Must comply with conditions of licence
Application process Applications to MED. MED checks eligibility.
Application requirements

Applicants must specify (to standard/level of specificity/engineering set by Ministry):

  • The proposed technology
  • Proposed number and specification of base stations (as at 18 months after licences granted)
  • Expected propagation characteristics of service (as at 18 months after licences granted)
Allocation process: initial

Where (after high level preliminary analysis by an engineer arranged by the Ministry) it is evident that all applicants can be accommodated with very low risk of unacceptable interference, licences will be granted. Note that licences would be specified using applicant’s technical specifications

Where (after high level preliminary analysis) there is any risk of unacceptable interference if all applications are granted in an area:

  • MED provides three months for applicants to coordinate and rationalise their technical requirements. (All technical and other information in applications available to all eligible applicants)
  • If agreement is not reached between applicants which resolves potential inference issues to the satisfaction of all applicants, MED draws lots to eliminate one applicant
  • Above process is repeated (but only one month allowed for further rounds of coordination between remaining applicants) until remaining applicants agree that all applications can be met

Licences granted specifying technical parameters agreed between parties.

Note: the Ministry would have no responsibility or liability for any subsequent interference between licensees where licensees are complying with their agreed technical parameters: any such interference issues would be up to the licences to resolve under the provisions of the Act.

Allocation process: subsequent new entrants

New entrants or any licensees wanting to amend the technical parameters of their licence would

  • Need to identify available spectrum
  • Need to obtain the agreement of existing licensees (such agreement may only be withheld if existing licensees can demonstrate that there is a risk of undue interference)
Usage requirements Requirement to make statutory declaration every two years that material investment has been made in base sites and equipment and that the licence is being used to provide services to users
Period of licence and renewals Six years, with right of renewal two years prior to expiry subject to meeting usage requirements
Enforcement and policing Normal RSM processes
Resource charge or fees

Application fee to cover estimated MED costs. (Preliminary estimate $1000 range)

Annual fee to cover estimated MED costs. (Preliminary estimate $1000.)

Any resource charge?

 

Advantages of this option

  • Maximises use of spectrum (number and specification of licences determined by user demand).
  • Ensures applicants are able to achieve the quality of service they want.
  • Allows for the deployment of different technologies and services.
  • More in tune with “spirit” of managed spectrum park (self-specification and self- management/cooperation) than option 2.
  • Lower engineering costs for Ministry (but higher for applicants).

 

Disadvantages of this option

  • Potentially time-consuming to reach agreement between applicants where demand exceeds supply.
  • Potential for gaming (applicants specify ambitious plans in order to improve their negotiating leverage where demand exceeds supply).
  • More expensive costs and fees/resource charges (compared to option 1).
  • Relies on applicants knowing and specifying what they want at time of applications.

[image] option 3 – expressions of interest with user-defined licence specifications.  

Question 8: managed spectrum parks: proposed allocation procedures and usage rules

  1. Do you agree with the suggested eligibility criteria for access to a MSP?
  2. Do you agree with the suggested core technical and usage requirement?
  3. Of the three options outlined above, which is your preferred method for implementing a MSP? Why?
  4. Are there better alternatives or variations on these implementation options?
  5. What incentives for gaming arise under the various options, and what measures, if any, could be taken to minimise such incentives?
  6. What fees or resource charges should be levied (particularly for your preferred option)?

Document Actions
Last updated 18 October 2007