Route to Possible V-Band Spectrum Sharing Laid Out
Smooth satellite industry spectrum sharing with terrestrial 5G networks remains a far-off goal, judging by comments Wednesday at Satellite 2017. Possible routes to sharing in a relatively virgin area of upper millimeter wave spectrum were discussed. Since satellite and terrestrial interests are developing V-band technology now, and there's little incumbency in the band, "let's come up with realistic parameters and talk about how we can share and not close doors prematurely" through international regulations, said GSMA Senior Spectrum Adviser Veena Rawat.
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.
Challenged about the likelihood of sharing, since 5G hasn't been specifically defined, Rawat said the possible characteristics of 5G range from more capacity and better latency to broader coverage, but that doesn't mean it has unlimited characteristics. She said a key application of 5G will be in dense metropolitan areas, and satellite use of that spectrum would be conceivable elsewhere.
Terrestrial interests in the FCC spectrum frontiers proceeding didn't seem like they were settling for just urban areas and instead were angling for entire economic areas, International Bureau Satellite Division Chief Jose Albuquerque said. He proposed the rough outline of a sharing policy that would divvy up the V-band between the two camps, with satellite able to deploy user terminals with few limits in one part of the band, and terrestrial able to deploy almost anywhere in the other. That separation model would somewhat follow what was done with the Ka-band, he said. He said the model should be able to evolve over time, allowing more spectrum to satellite or terrestrial deployments if one turns out to be rolling out much quicker than the other.
Pointing to the ongoing distrust between satellite and terrestrial interests, ITU Radiocommunication Bureau Chief-Space Services Yvon Henri said he hopes parties“will become more realistic, more pragmatic … more business oriented.” He also backed broad identification of the major issues that must be overcome for sharing in different bands, acknowledging sharing in some bands will be impossible.
The different regulatory paths the FCC and ITU take for satellite operations were often the focus. Telesat Senior Vice President-Corporate and Business Development Michael Schwartz pushed for the FCC to defer to ITU processes on spectrum sharing. ITU has a simple system that's more effective than regulators giving technical guidance on complex, unknown constellations and sharing spectrum among them, Schwartz said. He said the ITU has driven some level of harmonization and coordination already, and if individual nations have different rules that creates challenges.
Albuquerque said a chief difference in the approaches -- his agency requiring spectrum splitting when parties can't come to a coordination agreement, the ITU not -- reflects that ITU processes don't concretely define what accommodation means for an early filer in a band having to accommodate a latecomer. “The FCC thought it would not be advisable to authorize two systems that have a potential of causing interference to each other without clear rules," he said.
The differing rules on bringing a non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) system into use might come a little closer together, Albuquerque said. ITU requires one satellite be in operation for a network to be recognized by the ITU, while the FCC bond requirements set a much higher bar. "The right number is clearly in between," Albuquerque said, saying the ITU number likely will go up and the FCC number will go down. The commission has an NGSO NPRM looking at possible changes to the milestone rules (see 1612150066).
The challenge is coming up with a percentage or hard number that makes sense for different types of constellations or services, Henri said. He said a more fair number will come, but one chief concern he has is the possibility of the launch of one cubesat being used to try to gain an advantage over latecomers.
NGSO constellations could increasingly become tied to geostationary ones, some NGSO operators said. "Don't be surprised" if there is an announcement someday about LeoSat partnering with a GSO operator, given the resources and credibility that come with such partners, CEO Mark Rigolle said. Iridium might also end up in "a more direct relationship" with a GEO operator, though "it's not a requirement," said CEO Matt Desch.
Several NGSO operators indicated they weren't particularly eyeing the consumer broadband market. "Our view is to try to go where the elephants aren't," Desch said. Rigolle said LEOs can be price competitive in some instances with GEO, but its strength is more on differentiated services. He said LEOs won't tank pricing unless they all put out undifferentiated capacity, and it's unlikely the various operators would have many overlapping customers in a decade. OneWeb General Manager Scott Sprague said affordable user terminals remain a big stumbling block to satellite getting in the consumer broadband market in a sizable way.
Views differed on whether the industry's data capacity oversupply and price wars are part of its regular cycle. Rigolle said there has long been a history of a five- or 10-year cycle of oversupply and undersupply, though he said he doesn't see prices going up in the future. O3b CEO Steve Collar replied that the industry is more likely in a fundamental shift in its business than just reflecting its traditional business cycle.