Joint Response. of APSCC, CASBAA, ESOA and GVF. to the Consultation on. Spectrum Sharing Framework. issued by Pakistan Telecommunication Authority

Transcription

1 Joint Response of APSCC, CASBAA, ESOA and GVF to the Consultation on Spectrum Sharing Framework issued by Pakistan Telecommunication Authority 1. Introduction The Asia-Pacific Satellite Communications Council (APSCC), CASBAA Ltd. (formerly the Cable and Satellite Broadcasting Association of Asia), the Global VSAT Forum (GVF), and the EMEA Satellite Operators Association (ESOA) welcome the opportunity to provide comments on the Spectrum Sharing Framework issued by the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority of the Government of Pakistan. 1 APSCC is a non-profit international association representing all sectors of satellite and/or space-related industries, including private and public companies, government ministries and agencies, and academic and research entities. The overall objective of APSCC is to promote communications and broadcasting via satellite as well as outer space activities in the Asia-Pacific for the socioeconomic and cultural welfare of the region. 2 CASBAA is the leading non-profit trade organization in the Asia-Pacific region seeking to promote multichannel television via cable, satellite, broadband and wireless networks. CASBAA Ltd. represents around 100 Asia-focused corporations, which in turn serve more than 3 billion people and provide connections and content to more than 500 million households. 3 GVF serves as the unified voice of the global satellite communications industry. It brings together organizations engaged in the delivery of advanced broadband and narrowband satellite services to consumers, and commercial and government enterprises worldwide th April More information on APSCC can be found at 3 More information on CASBAA can be found at 4 More information on GVF can be found at 1

2 ESOA is a non-profit organization established with the objective of serving and promoting the common interests of EMEA satellite operators. The Association is the reference point for the European, Middle Eastern and African satellite industry and today represents the interests of 34 members, including satellite operators who deliver information communication services across the globe as well as EMEA space industry stakeholders and space insurance brokers. 5 APSCC, CASBAA, GVF and ESOA and specifically their satellite operator members, while continuing to seek new spectrum to support the growing demand for new satellite services as a first priority, support spectrum sharing where it is economically, operationally and technically viable and does not impair existing services and future potential services. 2. Satellite services continued demand for primary and co-primary spectrum Satellite actors rely on the continued long term availability of existing ITU allocated primary or coprimary spectrum to FSS, BSS and MSS to enable continued provision and development of advanced services to business, households and individuals. The main global allocations for satellite services are P band ( GHz), L band (1-2 GHz), S band (2-3 GHz), C band (3-7 GHz), X band (7-8 GHz), Ku band (10-15 GHz), Ka band ( GHz), Q/V band (31-52 GHz), W band ( GHz) 6. Commercial satellite services depend on satellites operating in C band, L band, S band, Ku band and Ka band spectrum. The take up of Ka band in particular is accelerating due to the wider bandwidths to support satellite broadband services including via VSAT terminals. Earth observation satellites require ever increasing bandwidths for data downlink, including permanent links at Ka band. Many of the Satellite Associations satellite operator members are already providing infrastructure that is critical to 3G and 4G services, and are actively involved in providing infrastructure that will be critical to the success of 5G services. Without access to exclusive spectrum, satellite providers will find it difficult to deploy ubiquitous satellite terminals for widespread consumer services, such as DTH or satellite broadband. Indeed, for example, the ITU has identified a number of high density FSS (HDFSS) bands (including the GHz and others see ITU Radio Regulations 5.516B) where ubiquitous deployment of satellite terminals for broadband services is to be expected. So, even as the regulator explores sharing possibilities, it should keep in mind that sharing is not appropriate in all bands. 5 More information on ESOA can be found at 6 UK Spectrum Usage & Demand: Second Edition Summary Report, at 26, 16 December 2015, Prepared by Real Wireless for UK Spectrum Policy Forum, 2

3 3. Satellite services will continue to share significant spectrum with other services The Satellite Associations support the role of the regulator in securing the long-term optimal use of spectrum and understand that spectrum sharing has an important role in this. The satellite industry is no stranger to maximising spectrum usage, including spectrum sharing. Indeed, since its early days it has shared spectrum by: frequency re-use on board satellites by spatial / beam isolation and polarisation frequency re-use in the geostationary arc by first 3 and later 2 orbital separation between cofrequency satellites spectrum sharing with fixed services based on coordination at global, regional and national levels. Globally, space services have primary allocations totaling 30% of all sub-3 GHz spectrum, 65% of spectrum between 1 GHz and 10 GHz, and 82% of spectrum between 1 GHz and 100 GHz. However, only 3% is available on an exclusive basis for space/satellite services, and between 3 GHz and 10 GHz, no spectrum is allocated on an exclusive basis 7. The Satellite Associations seek to clarify how the sharing mechanism proposed in this Consultation Paper is implemented in cases where spectrum is not allocated on an exclusive basis and how the agreement between licensees is sought when there are multiple incumbent licensees involved. 4. Satellite services are uniquely sensitive to interference, particularly in the space to earth links Physical laws are unwavering, regardless of spectrum policy. Thus spectrum policy makers including PTA should take physical and technical considerations into account. Table 1 gives some realistic comparable figures for an existing satellite downlink, an existing 4G macro cell mobile base station and an existing 4G micro cell mobile base station operating at 3600 MHz since that is the upper end of PTA s 3.5 GHz allocation for IMT services and at the lower end of the extended C-band allocation for FSS. It does not take into account any restrictions on transmit power of mobile base stations to ensure existing agreed interference protections are met. 7 UK Spectrum Usage & Demand: Second Edition Summary Report, at 26, 16 December 2015, Prepared by Real Wireless for UK Spectrum Policy Forum, 3

4 C-band Satellite Link Space-Earth 8 Mobile Base Station Macro cell 9 Mobile Base Station Micro cell 10 HPA power (higher end) 100 W 40 W 3 W Transmit antenna gain in 22 dbi 17 dbi 6 dbi desired direction EIRP in desired direction 40 dbw 11 = 70 dbm 33 dbw = 63 dbm 11 dbw = 41 dbm Path length range 35,786 to 41,756 km 12 2 to 30 km 0.2 to 2 km Path length mean 38,771 km 16 km 1.1 km Path loss at 3600 MHz db db db Receive antenna input dbm dbm dbm signal power Relative receive antenna input signal power 1 x 724,436 x 977,237 x Table 1 Relative signal strengths of FSS, IMT macro- and micro-cell at 3600 MHz at respective receive antenna inputs The wanted signal receive power at the input (i.e. immediately in front) of the IMT user equipment receiving from a mobile base station macro cell in this example is between seven hundred and twenty four thousand and a million times more powerful than that at the input of an FSS reception antenna receiving from a C-band satellite transponder, as used for example to receive cable TV services. Proposals for 5G may entail larger ratios even than these. These massive factors which are physically imposed and unavoidable for geostationary satellites are the main reason why frequency sharing with geostationary satellite communications systems requires site-specific studies of potential interference into all types and locations of satellite receiving stations. The main ways to reduce co-frequency interference into satellite receive antennas involve: reducing the cone in space (which apex is at the reception antenna) from which signals can be received e.g. using larger antennas with narrower beams, shielding antennas locally, using geographical features such as hills to block reception 8 was used for this and the mobile base station path loss calculations, with all other losses and receive antenna gain set at zero. 9 ECC Report Least Restrictive Technical Conditions suitable for Mobile/Fixed Communication Networks (MFCN), including IMT, in the frequency bands MHz and MHz, Table 9 Deployment Parameters, 10 & 20MHz IMT, at 17, 10 Ibid. 11 Numerous satellites covering Pakistan and Asia-Pacific region offer C-band coverage with around 40 dbw towards Pakistan including from operators: ABS, APT Satellite, AsiaSat etc. 12 These correspond to the range of elevation angles from 90 to 0. 4

5 reducing the cones in space from interfering transmit antennas (which apexes are at the transmit antennas) to reduce the power radiated towards the satellite receive antennas e.g. using similar techniques to the previous increasing the separation distance between interfering transmit antennas and satellite receiving stations e.g. in some cases imposing exclusion zones in front of the satellite receive antennas, although because of the huge relative signal power factors to overcome, the separation distances may range from tens of metres to hundreds of kilometres. Middle earth orbit (MEO) and low earth orbit (LEO) satellites suffer less dramatic path losses, but because the satellites are not geostationary, reception antennas are typically less directional and have larger reception cones. Thus some of the above mitigation measures are harder to achieve with MEO and LEO satellite systems, and it should not be assumed that they are less susceptible overall to interference than geostationary satellite systems. 5. Satellite communications systems offer major benefits and unique qualities as compared to terrestrial communications systems Quite apart from unique-to-satellite services such as earth observation and the various satellite based positioning and navigation systems, communications satellites offer many benefits and unique qualities over terrestrial communications options including: Aeronautical and maritime services for broadband information to and from and entertainment delivery to aircraft and vessels over the 2/3 of the earth that is sea, there is no practical alternative to satellites Broadcast services broadcast delivery is more spectrum efficient the more end users there are, as to broadcast the very same data (whether video, audio, terrain data for autonomous driving vehicles etc) to one subscriber or one million or ten million does not require more spectrum and nor does it require more transmitting antennas Coverage to cover an area of about 40,000 km 2 or more with high data rate coverage via a single transmitter site is very difficult to achieve 13, except by satellite or high altitude platforms Disaster recovery satellite services can reach areas that are difficult to reach with other transmitters due to terrain blocking (mountains, sea etc) and by reducing the number of transmitters required in many cases to one initially to cover a wide area deployment speed during or after a disaster or emergency can be maximised Energy efficiency and environmental friendliness while undeniably this does not apply to launches, though some launchers are carbon neutral because they use hydrogen and oxygen 13 The horizon distance of a 1 km total height terrestrial transmitter would be under 113 km, giving a maximum possible coverage area of about 40,000 km 2 assuming no terrain blockage and adequate transmitter power 5

6 fuel communications satellites are typically solar powered throughout their year service lifetime, so the initial launch carbon emissions (if any) can be spread over that lifetime, while the wider coverage than terrestrial transmitters multiplies the relative efficiency of satellites by the number of terrestrial transmitters that would be required to achieve the same coverage Freedom of movement both in terms of cross-border carriage of services (subject to prior international agreement at ITU-R / WRC and individual nations approvals of landing rights, uplinking licences etc), ability in some cases to physically steer beams to new locations (e.g. for disaster recovery) and ability to redeploy satellites to alternative orbital locations. 6. General comments on spectrum sharing a) Sharing comes with trade-offs both to primary / co-primary and secondary services Primary or co-primary services that are sensitive and/or susceptible to co-frequency interference may be impaired by secondary or other co-primary rollouts. Further rollouts of primary or co-primary services that are sensitive and/or susceptible to co-frequency interference may be impeded by secondary or other co-primary rollouts. On the other hand, rollouts of secondary or co-primary services may be impeded by the sensitivity and/or susceptibility of existing primary or co-primary services to co-frequency interference and may in some cases have to be rolled back to some extent in certain areas where practical interference mitigation measures fail to ensure adequate quality of service to the higher prioritised services. Both the impairment of services and the impediment to rollout of services can be very costly to relevant operators. Sharing is thus not a simple panacea, but an often complex trade-off of net additional costs to all parties versus net additional benefits to all parties. b) Outside constrained environments such as built premises, uncontrolled sharing is impractical At least when it comes to sensitive and/or susceptible service types including most satellite reception services for the reason explained in Section 4. The Satellite Associations believe from the consultation that such uncontrolled sharing is not being proposed by PTA for frequency bands listed in Section 2 or any other satellite frequency bands. In any case, frequency sharing with geostationary satellite communications systems requires sitespecific studies of potential interference into all types and locations of satellite receiving stations. Uncontrolled sharing within homes, offices, buildings, underground structures, tunnels etc at higher frequencies has limited scope to interfere with FSS and FS microwave links. 6

7 c) Sharing of all bands for all services is impractical Because different types of application and service need different delivery characteristics, and delivery characteristics favour different propagation characteristics and thus different frequency bands. In other frequency bands, the type of services to which the spectrum is allocated may not require a national sharing mechanism to be in place. This is typically the case for satellite exclusive bands. d) Technology neutrality is possible But again, different technologies are better suited to the different propagation characteristics of the different frequency bands including: i. noise characteristics, attenuation under different atmospheric and precipitation conditions ii. network characteristics: mesh, star, single transmitter, multi-hop etc. Strictly applied, technology neutrality should require that the same level of protection is afforded to adjacent and nearby frequency bands, regardless of the technology they are using. Thus, one set of outof-band emissions limits (power spectral density) and one set of spurious emissions limits (power spectral density) should be imposed on a service, no matter what technology it or its neighbours use. However, this is not the present practice. e) If sharing is only permitted on a no objection basis, it may lead to under-utilisation of bands For example, it may be harder for prospective regional area licensees to enter a market that has established national players, especially if the prospective area licensees could make better use of and thus more taxable revenue from the spectrum in their regional area. The Satellite Associations believe from the consultation that the no objection basis would not be the only criterion for PTA s assessing suitability of a band of frequencies for sharing. f) Terrestrial IMT especially 5G sharing with satellite is a complex, moving target While some forms of satellite sharing with other services are well established, modelled and understood such as between FSS and FS assessments of potential interference, applicable limits and protection measures still need to be performed on a case-by-case basis for terrestrial 5G and satellite antennas; not least because the 5G specifications are in a state of rapid flux. Moreover, since satellite can contribute to 5G networks particularly in areas such as backhaul, broadcast and trunking its frequencies will need to be sufficiently protected to allow it to make its full contribution to 5G services and thus enable such 5G services to reach their full potential, particularly in the areas highlighted in Section 5 where satellite offers significant benefits and/or unique features. g) Adjacent and near band interference into sensitive and/or susceptible services Given the demonstrated sensitivity of satellite reception to interference, more powerful (usually terrestrial) services operated in adjacent and near bands can interfere and significantly disrupt satellite 7

8 reception, as a result of out-of-band emissions from those systems, overload of the satellite receiver s Low Noise Block Converter (LNB) or intermodulation effects. Introducing sharing increases the number of potential terrestrial interferers and the potential for interference. The Satellite Associations propose that potential sharers of spectrum be obliged to consider the impact of their transmitting stations also on adjacent bands and nearby bands that are particularly sensitive and/or susceptible to interference e.g. satellite services. h) The regulator still has role to play to enable totality of services to reach their full potential The Satellite Associations would like to reiterate their support for the regulator, PTA, continuing to play a major role in spectrum assignment, spectrum management and spectrum sharing arrangements as many of the scenarios described above clearly beg regulatory oversight that PTA is established to provide, per Annex A. 8

9 Spectrum Sharing Framework for Pakistan The following are the Satellite Associations comments on the specific paragraphs of the Spectrum Sharing Framework. The paragraphs extracted directly from the Spectrum Sharing Framework are shown emboldened and the Satellite Associations comments are given in normal text. It is emphasised that sharing already occurs between satellite operators and an indiscriminate application of the proposed spectrum sharing framework to all bands/services may lead to an inefficient use of spectrum. In fact, as long as the satellite networks have a sufficiently large orbital separation or are coordinated, spectrum sharing is feasible, allowing the coexistence of multiple providers without the requirement for additional national sharing agreements. In other instances for example, coordination between terrestrial Fixed Service and satellite gateway earth stations sharing is also efficiently done simply by coordination. 1. Spectrum may be shared between any licensees for the same service(s) or different service(s). 2. Spectrum will be shared only if the relevant licenses that contain the spectrum assignment to be shared, permit sharing. 3. Spectrum assigned to licensees without such a permit will not be shared unless Federal Government (MoIT) specifically authorizes the sharing as being in the public interest. 4. Spectrum Sharing will be of three types: i. Equal Rights: Both the licensees will have same rights on the shared spectrum ii. Primary Users: Primary user shall have more rights on the spectrum than the Secondary user. Primary users will be protected against interference caused by usage of shared spectrum by secondary users. iii. Secondary user: Secondary user will be authorized to share the spectrum subject to the condition that it does not cause interference or degrade quality of service to the primary user(s). 5. The licensed spectrum holders may share all of their assigned spectrum with another party who will also be the valid licensee of the same service(s) or different service(s), till the remaining term of license or for a specific period of time; provided both the licenses are valid for the specified duration. 6. Both licensees will enter into contract agreement to be submitted to PTA at the time of application clearly specifying spectrum to be shared, type of sharing, duration, location and time for sharing (if applicable). 7. A license-holder may share its assigned spectrum with another license-holder only if both the licenses contain the necessary terms and conditions as provided in this framework. After modification 9

10 of the license conditions, the licensed spectrum holder shall become eligible to enter into a contract to share the spectrum with a licensed operators for the same service(s) or different service(s). 8. Interested parties will apply to PTA, on a prescribed form seeking permission for spectrum sharing. The application form should be duly signed by the CEO or his/her authorized person. An affidavit shall be submitted in case of authorization. Applicants are required to fill the Application for Spectrum Sharing along with the checklist attached as Annex-A to this document. 9. Spectrum holding licensees are allowed to share the spectrum on terms agreed commercially between them. The following procedure for spectrum sharing shall be followed: a. The license holders shall submit the Spectrum Sharing Application form to PTA duly signed by both the licensees. b. Both the licensees will provide a comprehensive interference (arising as a result of spectrum sharing) management plan. c. The information provided on the form will be assessed and considered whether any additional information is required for grant of consent to the sharers. d. Spectrum held by licensees, can be shared upto 100%. Both the licensees will be in compliance with the prescribed spectrum caps as and when declared from GoP. For clarification, does this mean that: a) both licensees will be required to be in compliance with the prescribed spectrum caps before they apply for spectrum sharing?, or b) by sharing spectrum, licensees will be deemed to be in compliance of prescribed spectrum caps?, and/or c) shared spectrum will not count to the prescribed spectrum caps? e. PTA may seek public opinion from all concerned regarding spectrum sharing and its impact on competition, national security, public health and safety, compliance with the national laws and policies and compliance with international obligations and international relations. f. PTA may require from interested parties to submit within 10 working days details of any concerns they might have about the proposed sharing. Ten working days is rather a short time to raise concerns adequately, especially if the information on the proposed spectrum sharing arrangement is sparse. It also depends on the way the proposed sharing is notified to the interested parties. 10

11 Would such notification be published on the PTA s website, or does PTA envisage notifying relevant potentially interested parties directly? In either case, given that push notification is more likely to gain a timely response than pull searching for notifications, would it be possible for potentially interested parties to pre-register their interest in particular frequency blocks to ensure that they are notified automatically and in as timely a manner as possible, when spectrum sharing applications are made in those blocks? This raises the wider issues of the information accuracy, breadth, depth, dissemination, quality, relevance and timeliness necessary to ensure that spectrum sharing brings benefits expected of it. g. PTA will have detailed assessment of whether the proposed sharing raises sufficient competition concerns. h. PTA may require meeting(s) with the sharing parties and third parties to discuss issues, if any, related to the sharing. i. The proposed sharing or otherwise, shall be properly notified to the concerned quarters. For clarification, is this step the responsibility of PTA or the applicant(s) or both and what entities constitute the concerned quarters? 10. The circumstances in which spectrum sharing is automatically barred include the following: a. Any of the licensees is defaulter of PTA payments and/or roll out obligations; b. In case, any of the licensees has not consented to the sharing in the form; c. In case, any legal proceeding(s) related to license(s); license obligations; licensed services or payments etc., are pending against any of the licensees; d. In case, PTA has not consented to grant spectrum sharing permission due to any reason thereof, and this shall be notified properly by the Authority. 11. Sharing Terms & Price: The sharing terms including price are a matter of commercial negotiation between the parties concerned. However, these should comply with all regulatory requirements as set out in the relevant license conditions. 12. PTA shall charge spectrum sharing processing fee to recover its administrative costs involved in the processing of the application. The processing fee shall be levied on both the licensees and will be Rs. 100,000/-. The licensee(s) shall be responsible to clear all its dues prior to finalizing any contract for spectrum sharing. 13. Spectrum sharing shall not change the original period of spectrum assignment as relevant to the shared block of the spectrum. 11

12 14. Licensees will be allowed to use the shared spectrum based on technology neutral policy. 15. Both the licensees will comply with quality of service and all regulatory requirements as set out in the relevant license conditions. 16. Both the licensees will take utmost measures to completely avoid interference or mitigate interference to an acceptable level so that quality of service for end user(s) is not jeopardize as a result of spectrum sharing. The Satellite Associations respectfully request that PTA clarify that the quality of service for end users referred to should include end users of co-frequency spectrum already shared by other mechanisms than the new Spectrum Sharing Framework, and end users of adjacent-frequency spectrum. For example, spectrum sharing between IMT services in the extended C-band, MHz, could cause interference into TVRO antennas at one or more of Pakistan s 3,100+ licensed cable operators, receiving licensed services having either domestic satellite TV licenses or international landing rights. The Satellite Associations kindly asks that PTA clarify that the intent and scope of this clause 16. would include protection for such licensed cable operators TVRO antennas. 17. Both the licensee will ensure to stop cross border spillage of signals arising as a result of spectrum sharing. 18. Both the licensees, through proper advertisement, will apprise the subscribers the usage of shared spectrum for the services. 19. PTA/FAB may grant approval/rejection within 60 days after receiving the application complete in all respect. 20. PTA will ensure that the telecom services offered by its licensee(s), by sharing spectrum, do not affect subscribers and quality of service is ascertained by the licensee(s) as per license conditions. 21. PTA/FAB reserves the rights to revoke the permission for spectrum sharing in the event interference is caused, as a result spectrum sharing, to other licensed spectrum users. The Satellite Associations request that PTA clarify that the other licensed spectrum users referred to should include end users of co-frequency spectrum already shared by other mechanisms than the new Spectrum Sharing Framework, and end users of adjacent-frequency spectrum that may suffer degraded service, below a threshold level, as a result of this Spectrum Sharing Framework. The Satellite Associations request that PTA clarify that the intent and scope of this clause 21. would include protection for licensed cable operators TVRO antennas receiving licensed services having either domestic satellite TV licenses or international landing rights. 12

13 22. PTA/FAB reserves the rights to revoke the permission for spectrum sharing in the event end user has a degraded quality of service, below a threshold level, as a result spectrum sharing. The Satellite Associations request that PTA clarify that the end user referred to need not be an end user of either of the licensed services between which spectrum is shared under this arrangement. For example, such end user should include end users of co-frequency spectrum already shared by other mechanisms than the new Spectrum Sharing Framework, and end users of adjacent-frequency spectrum that may suffer degraded service, below a threshold level, as a result of this Spectrum Sharing Framework. The Satellite Associations request that PTA clarify that the intent and scope of this clause 22. would include protection for licensed cable operators TVRO antennas receiving licensed services having either domestic satellite TV licenses or international landing rights. 23. PTA/FAB reserves the rights to revoke the permission for spectrum sharing in the interest to national security, threat to the competition, hazard to public health and safety, non-compliance with the national laws and policies, international obligations and international relations. 13

14 Annex A Extract from Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996 Chapter II Pakistan Telecommunication Authority 4. Functions of the [Pakistan Telecommunication] Authority. (1) The Authority shall (a) regulate the establishment, operation and maintenance of telecommunication systems and the provision of telecommunication services in Pakistan; (b) receive and expeditiously dispose of applications for the use of radio-frequency spectrum; (c) promote and protect the interests of users of telecommunication services in Pakistan; (d) promote the availability of a wide range of high quality, efficient, cost effective and competitive telecommunication services throughout Pakistan; (e) promote rapid modernization of telecommunication systems and telecommunication services; (f) investigate and adjudicate on complaints and other claims made against licensees arising out of alleged contraventions of the provisions of this Act, the rules made and licences issued thereunder and take action accordingly; (g) make recommendations to the Federal Government on policies with respect to international telecommunications, provision of support for participation in international meetings and agreements to be executed in relation to the routing of international traffic and accounting settlements; (h) perform such other functions as the Federal Government may, from time to time, assign to it; (i) regulate arrangements amongst telecommunication service providers of sharing their revenue derived from provision of telecommunication service; (j) ensure effective compliance by licensees with Universal Services Obligations; (k) regulate Access Promotion Contribution; (l) settle disputes between licensees; and (m) regulate competition in the telecommunication sector and protect consumer rights. 14