3. Analysis

Do you agree with the analysis of regulatory framework options for UWB communications?

All submitters agreed with the analysis and inclusion of the four regulatory options. Kordia commented on establishing further clarity between the transitional maximum emission levels prior to 2010 (fig 3 of the discussion paper) and the post 2010 values proposed by EU (fig 4 of the discussion paper). This is addressed in section 3.2 of this report.

Do you agree with the proposal to implement the European harmonised licensing framework for UWB communications devices in New Zealand?

All submitters agreed on adopting the European framework, noting that it represents the most robust and protective GUL for existing services.

Comments and suggestions from the submitters are summarised below:

• Vodafone is interested in product compliance and certification. Vodafone is of the view that a key issue for the success of UWB deployment is product compliance with the NZ GUL. It suggested establishing stringent mechanisms to control the import of non-compliant products. These mechanisms should involve steps such as certification of importers and appropriate enforcement. In this regard, the Ministry notes that the creation of a GUL for UWB communications products will involve adding the UWB ETSI standards to the current product compliance regime, for enforcement.

• The WiMax Forum proposed adding further clarity to the proposal in terms of maximum EIRPs and mitigation techniques. These suggestions have been incorporated in the detailed framework provided in Appendix B of this document.

• Telecom suggested that the European framework represents a manageable level of interference risk in respect to their DMR fixed links, and therefore the European mask and technical constraints should be followed. It also proposed that the aggregate level of interference posed by UWB devices should be 10 dB below the thermal noise of licensed receivers.
  
  The Ministry is of the view that the adoption of the more stringent emission limits imposed by the European post 2010 framework will afford sufficient protection to the services concerned. Imposing an aggregate limit level of 10 dB below the noise floor of receivers, in the Ministry’s view, would be impractical due to difficulties in defining a standard receiver and measuring and enforcing the aggregate UWB emissions. In this regard, ETSI considers aggregate interference as an extreme situation, especially outdoors. It suggests taking into account all the relevant parameters for aggregation to occur, for instance; device numbers in interfering range, distribution in time of the emissions of each device, propagation characteristics and geographic distribution.
  
  The Ministry further notes that the risk of harmful interference to DMR fixed links through aggregate interference of UWB communication devices is very small. This is primarily due to the short range – low power nature of UWB devices and the physical isolation provided by high site fixed microwave installations and antenna discrimination.

• Kordia broadly supported the proposal but also expressed concern about the potential for harmful interference to their DMR fixed links. Kordia’s concerns refer specifically to situations involving UWB devices operating in very close proximity and in bore-sight to fixed link antennas. In this regard, Kordia suggests applying the post 2010 limits from day one, which are more stringent.
  The Ministry agrees with the view of adopting the post 2010 European framework which affords more protection to existing fixed services in the 4.2-4.8 GHz band. The Ministry notes that the EU framework has been established taking into consideration a range of compatibility studies between UWB and concerned services. The EU approach also encourages tighter radio product specifications across the concerned bands to mitigate harmful interference, in addition to the operational constraints contained in the framework.
  Adopting the EU standard does present the risk of aligning New Zealand with a technical standard which has fewer products available at present in comparison to the US standard. However, UWB communication devices conforming to the post 2010 standard are already available in Europe and more are being developed.
  
  The proposed NZ framework can be further reviewed and adjusted in collaboration with industry should any issues arise in future.

Do you have suggestions for any other alternatives for regulating UWB communication devices in New Zealand?

All submitters are in agreement that the European framework is the most appropriate framework. Some submitters have provided the following suggestions:

• Kordia proposed applying additional regulatory details as necessary, taking into account the specific situation of existing services in New Zealand. It suggests considering the application of additional operational constraints within the GUL conditions for the protection of existing services. In this regard, the Ministry considers that the operational restrictions imposed by the European post 2010 framework provide a reasonable protection margin. The proposed GUL can be reviewed and adjusted in collaboration with industry to account for additional operational constraints should this become necessary in future.

The Ministry plans to implement the post 2010 European harmonized framework for licensing UWB communication devices in New Zealand by way of a General User Licence (GUL).

This framework, in Ministry’s view, provides a reasonable balance between the protection of existing services and allowing the deployment of UWB communications technology in New Zealand.

The New Zealand GUL framework will introduce the emission limits established by Europe post 2010 without a transitional limit mask. These emission limits are described in Appendix B.