With WRC-19 Plans Forming, Spectrum Harmonization Debated
Global efforts at spectrum harmonization alternately came under fire and were held up for applause by speakers Tuesday at Satellite 2017. The 2015 World Radiocommunication Conference raised questions about whether there's a fundamental breakdown of the ability to harmonize, said Dynamic Spectrum Alliance President Kalpak Gude. GSMA Senior Spectrum Adviser Veena Rawat said harmonization "is not dead." She said one constant issue with harmonization is the long period that can come between allocation of spectrum for a service and the actual rollout of those services in that band. She cited 600 MHz harmonization through the ITU in 2009, with countries today still transitioning their broadcasting.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
WRC-19 is an opportunity to improve harmonization of some bands like 3.4 GHz and 3.6-3.7 GHz, Rawat said. She said sharing in higher frequency bands needs to be explored. Sharing needs “realistic parameters," and defining those parameters is difficult, she said. When looking at spectrum for 5G, there might be some interest in sharing techniques the U.S. is employing with the 3.5 GHz band, she said: “That may be an approach -- the jury is still out.”
That the U.S. and Europe are taking go-it-alone approaches on 600 MHz points to a weakness in harmonization efforts, said Eric Fournier, director-spectrum planning and international affairs at Agence Nationale des Frequences. Countered Rawat: even getting a few countries to be footnotes on the 600 MHz band "gets the ecosystem going" and could lead to a band plan. "It does ultimately benefit the rest of the world, the latecomers," she said. "You have learned from the mistakes of the early starters."
WRC-15 showed more interference studies and analyses are needed, preferably before nations already are working on that spectrum, said Robin McGrath, wireless aide to FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly. Studies of 28 GHz were blocked at WRC-15, but individual countries have started that process and harmonization might follow, she said. Pointing to WRC-19's agenda item 1.13 on identification of frequency bands for future International Mobile Telecommunications use, McGrath said WRC-19 likely will see the same issues: "This is going to be a story that keeps continuing."
There's an incorrect perception that if a band is identified for study, that automatically means deployment in that band, McGrath said. Given the congestion in bands below 6 GHz, she said, there have to be studies of lots of bands before decisions come about where additional use is possible. "Do we throw up our hands and say 'no more?' " she asked. She said sharing is going to be part of FCC policy, but exclusive use of a band remains important and can sometimes be preferable since it's "cleaner."
Consensus and harmonization are very important for Europe, with that consensus being why 28 GHz was excluded from WRC-15 consideration for 5G, said Fournier. He said one European priority at WRC-19 will be agenda item 1.5 on the study of 17.7-19.7 GHz downlinks and 27.5-29.5 GHz uplinks by mobile earth stations and geostationary (GEO) satellites. While 28 GHz isn't on the WRC-19 agenda, if various national actions on the band ahead of WRC-19 build momentum, "more power to all of us," Rawat said.
The satellite industry needs to do a better job showing the relevance of satellite relative to terrestrial alternatives if it wants to safeguard its spectrum holdings, said ViaSat CEO Mark Dankberg. Showing the public benefit to preserving that spectrum "is the biggest long-term challenge for the industry -- no spectrum, no growth for us," he said. He said the industry can demonstrate such applications as in-flight connectivity, but it needs to be able to demonstrate its role in closing the digital divide: "If we don't do that, we will all be in some danger."
Satellite operators are divided over what kind of future they see in low earth orbit constellations. Eutelsat CEO Rodolphe Belmer said with broadband being the big driver of future industry growth, LEO is the only technology that brings capacity at costs affordable to the mass market. Dankberg called LEOs "economically challenging." But Telesat CEO Daniel Goldberg said LEO technology is evolving to make it viable. He said the company plans to launch two LEO prototypes this year, with plans of offering service via a LEO constellation by 2021. He said if flat panel user terminals become available at low cost, the LEO market will grow, but such terminals are "a little bit out there.”
Eventually, more GEO operators will invest in hybrid LEO/GEO operations, said Jim Murray, a partner in investment bank PJT Partners. Once customers experience hybrid services, “it will be very hard to go back," he said. Murray said new technologies increasingly are challenging incumbent business models, which will lead to more mergers and acquisitions. "Things are just getting going," Murray said. "There are a lot of pent-up transactions."
CEOs are underwhelmed by promises of disruptive change in the cost of satellite launches. With a one-month delay in a launch meaning tens of millions of dollars of lost potential revenue, Dankberg said, predictability and reliability of a launch schedule is more important than lowering launch costs. Inmarsat CEO Rupert Pearce said he "would rather pay up a lot more money to get on a launch I know will be successful at the right time."