Qualcomm response to ACMA's WAS

419
-1

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
419
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Qualcomm response to ACMA's WAS

  1. 1. March 30th, 2007 Executive Manager Spectrum Planning Branch Australian Communications and Media Authority PO Box 78 Belconnen ACT 2616 Fax: 02 6219 5133 Email: WAS-planning@acma.gov.au QUALCOMM Incorporated would like to thank the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) for the opportunity to provide comments on the ACMA’s Strategies for Wireless Access Services: Spectrum Access Options. QUALCOMM is a leader and innovator in the development of digital wireless technologies including those based on Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA), Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) and others. These solutions are available today for a number of communications applications, including mobile cellular, fixed wireless access, broadband wireless access, trunking and satellite services. QUALCOMM is interested in the success of all the air interfaces that comprise the International Telecommunication Union’s (ITU) IMT-2000 recommendations that use CDMA technologies, including CDMA Multi-Carrier (CDMA2000), CDMA Direct Spread (WCDMA) and CDMA Time Division Duplex (UMTS TDD), which share a common technology base. QUALCOMM has also developed other technology solutions for wireless service providers including MediaFLO™ 1 , an end-to-end solution that enables broadcasting of high-quality video streams, audio channels, as well as other multimedia applications (video clips, IP datacasting applications, etc.) to mobile handsets. FLO (Forward-Link-Only) technology, a key component of the MediaFLO system, is a new mobile broadcast air interface – based on coded orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (COFDM) modulation – that is designed and optimized to increase capacity and coverage while reducing the cost of multimedia content delivery to mobile handsets. In addition, QUALCOMM is an Australian spectrum license holder. In 2001, QUALCOMM Incorporated, via 3G Investments (Australia) Pty Ltd, paid $159 million Australian Dollars for 2x10 MHz of spectrum in the 2.1 GHz band in the major Australian cities. This spectrum licence was awarded in 2002 and expires in 2017. In this submission, QUALCOMM will focus its comments on the 2500 – 2690 MHz band, the 520 – 820 MHz band, and the new ‘private park’ licensing concept. Suitability of candidate bands Recognising the suitability of the identified bands for WAS, and their importance for incumbent services: 1. Should the 2500-2690 MHz band be made available (in whole or part) for WAS applications? If it were, what would be implications (costs) be for ENG applications? (also refer to section 5 ‘Band Segmentation Options”) 1 http://www.qualcomm.com/mediaflo/index.shtml. 1
  2. 2. QC supports the ACMA’s proposal to release spectrum in the 2500 – 2690 MHz (“2.5 GHz”) band. This band differs from some of the other frequency bands proposed for WAS (e.g., 3575 – 3710 MHz, 520 – 820 MHz) in that it has already been identified by the ITU for administrations wishing to implement IMT-2000.2 In this regard, it is targeted for 3G / IMT-2000 expansion and will be needed to sustain the fast market growth of 3G services. With more than 448 million subscribers worldwide, including 115 million WCDMA/HSDPA 3 and 333 million CDMA2000 4 , 3G technologies are currently providing advanced broadband data and voice services throughout Australia, Asia, Europe and the Americas. As of February 2007, there were 97 HSDPA mobile broadband networks in operation in 51 countries with another 82 planned or being deployed.5 Moreover, 3G technologies are continuing to evolve towards higher data rate capabilities (such as HSPA+, Long Term Evolution (LTE) & Ultra Mobile Broadband (UMB)) and will require additional spectrum, and large channel bandwidths. For instance, QUALCOMM recently announced the sampling of HSPA+ chipsets in the 2.5 GHz band by the end of 2007. HSPA+, based on the 3GPP Release 7 standard, provides data rates of up to 28 Mbps on the downlink and 11 Mbps on the uplink, significant increases in network capacity, reduced latency and an enhanced user experience for many data-intensive applications. Access to the relatively wide bandwidth available in 2.5 GHz will benefit this evolution. QUALCOMM, therefore, believes the 2500-2690 MHz band is of great importance for the development of 3G technologies and their continual evolutions. As the ACMA is aware, this frequency band is the subject of significant controversy within the ITU Radiocommunication Sector with regard to the co-existence between space and terrestrial services under World Radio Conference 2007 (WRC-07) Agenda Item 1.9, “to review the technical, operational and regulatory provisions applicable to the use of the band 2 500-2 690 MHz by space services in order to facilitate sharing with current and future terrestrial services without placing undue constraint on the services to which the band is allocated.” Australia has made significant contributions to the work of ITU-R Joint Task Group 6-8-9 which was established to “…deal with the issues related to the use of the band 2500-2690 MHz by space services in order to facilitate sharing with current and future terrestrial services.” Australia has been steadfast in its claim for appropriate power flux density (PFD) limits applied to satellite emissions in the 2.5 GHz band in order to protect their terrestrial services and has proposed the adoption of stringent PFD limits. Given that most of the satellite proponents in the 2500-2690 MHz band are planning to operate, or are currently operating, satellite systems that will have service areas or inadvertent footprints in ITU Region 3 countries, this international debate is relevant to the ACMA’s plans to release spectrum in the band. In order to provide greater certainty to interested bidders, the ACMA may want to await the final outcomes of WRC-07 on this issue before releasing spectrum in the band. QUALCOMM believes that the IMT-2000 process established by the ITU is valuable as it enables global collaboration taking into account the interests of administrations, operators and manufacturers in order to reach harmonization and technical compatibility. QUALCOMM will therefore continue to support and contribute to the IMT-2000 global spectrum harmonization that includes the 2.5 GHz band. 2. What are the implications if the 2500-2690 MHz band is not made available for WAS? No comment 3. Should the 3575-3710 MHz band be made available (in whole or part) for WAS applications? If it were, what would the implications (costs) be for fixed point-to-point links and fixed-satellite services? (also refer to section 5 “Band Segmentation Options”) No comment 4. What are the implications if the 3575-3710 MHz band is not made available for WAS? 2 See ITU Radio Regulations No. 5.384A and Resolution 223. 3 3G Americas and Wireless Intelligence, February 20, 2007. 4 www.3Gtoday.com as of February 28th, 2007. 5 GSA, February 2007 and 3G Americas, February 20th, 2007. 2
  3. 3. No comment If the 2500-2690 MHz band were made available for WAS: 5. Which segmentation option would you prefer? Why? Respondents are welcome to suggest alternative segmentation options. QUALCOMM supports the band segmentation plan proposed as Option 2. This arrangement (i.e., 70 MHz FDD / 50 MHz TDD / 70 MHz FDD) provides separate band segments for FDD and TDD operations, maintains the 120 MHz duplex separation required by 3GPP/3GPP2 specifications and ITU-R Recommendation M.1036, and would be consistent with the plan expected to be used by many other countries for 2500-2690 MHz. We believe all of the other options, which entail a flexible FDD/TDD block assignment scheme, would not provide the expected benefits to either paired or un-paired operations. This will impact Australian consumers as it may lead to Australia-specific handsets which will be difficult, if not impossible, to be used to roam with other countries. Irrespective of what technologies or services may be deployed, a common and harmonized band plan facilitates economies of scale, which in turn brings benefits to consumers. Options 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 would lead to an inefficient use of spectrum due to the multiple guard bands that would be needed. Moreover, it will be extremely difficult for an FDD handset to operate in differing band plans with one Transmit/Receive (Tx/Rx) chain while protecting the unpaired spectrum from Tx interference. For example, an FDD terminal operating in accordance with the European agreed ECC band plan 6 could have difficulty meeting the protection requirements of a TDD handset operating in accordance with a different band plan. The FDD terminal would have to use a set of duplexer filters different from the set used for the ECC band plan in order to protect the unpaired spectrum. Requirements on the TDD terminal Tx would also be needed to meet the FDD handset Rx band requirements. These requirements could be difficult to meet. Terminals with roaming capabilities between countries that have adopted differing band plans will require more complex implementation likely resulting in higher cost, higher power consumption, and shorter distance coverage due to higher filter insertion loss. Sharing studies conducted by QUALCOMM between FDD and TDD Base Stations show that the lowest frequency block of a licensee’s unpaired spectrum is not viable for usage because of tight requirements on Tx filtering (up to 74 dB filtering required for FDD vs. TDD or TDD vs. TDD and around 49 dB for TDD vs. FDD, on top of ACLR values which have been specified for TDD and FDD). It is also highly questionable whether the second lowest block of a licensee’s unpaired spectrum is viable for usage in the case of co- located base stations (up to 100 dB filtering required for FDD vs. TDD or TDD vs. TDD and 75 dB for TDD vs. FDD on top of ACLR values which have been specified for TDD and FDD). The efficiency of spectrum use therefore will be considerably reduced. Sharing studies between FDD and TDD mobile user terminals show that the lowest block of a licensee’s unpaired spectrum is not viable for usage (for 5 m separation, the amount of Tx filtering that would be required on top of the specified ACLR values for TDD and FDD is up to 40.3 dB for TDD vs. FDD and up to 42.5 dB for FDD vs.TDD or TDD vs.TDD). The 2nd lowest block of a licensee’s unpaired spectrum is also not viable for usage (for 5 m separation, the amount of Tx filtering that would be required on top of the specified ACLR values is up to 22.3 dB for TDD vs. FDD and up to 32.5 dB for FDD vs. TDD or TDD vs. TDD). The efficiency of spectrum use is considerably reduced in this case. Although it could be envisaged that the risk of interference on the base stations could be lessened through additional site engineering measures such as filtering, it would be nearly impossible to mitigate the impact on user terminals while maintaining roaming capabilities within other countries which implement, for example, the ECC band plan. 6 See “ECC Decision of 18 March 2005 on harmonised utilisation of spectrum for IMT-2000/UMTS systems operating within the band 2500 – 2690 MHz.” This decision shows the frequency plan agreed upon within the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT) Electronic Communications Committee (ECC) to be 70 MHz FDD / 50 MHz TDD / 70 MHz FDD. 3
  4. 4. For these reasons, QUALCOMM urges the ACMA to adopt Option 2 and to work further with industry to develop the technical requirements that would enable the expansion of 3G services and the evolution of 3G technologies in the 2.5 GHz band. 6. What option(s) would you prefer for the management of incumbent services? Why? QUALCOMM recognizes that the ACMA may need to manage incumbent services such as electronic newsgathering and outside broadcast (ENG/OB) services. One possibility for accommodating these services is to adopt a variant of Option 2 whereby the center 50 MHz would be used to support ENG/OB and the outer 2 x 70 MHz would be designated for FDD operations. The advantages to this option are that it accommodates ENG/OB albeit in a limited portion of spectrum, preserves Australian capability to use handsets for roaming, avoids the technical complications and inefficiencies that are detailed in response to Question 5 above, and would be consistent with the band segmentation plan agreed within Europe and expected to be used by many other countries throughout the world. As the broadcasters transition from analog to digital operations in Australia, over the long-term they will be able to use the spectrum more efficiently. While the 50 MHz might not be sufficient to meet all the ENG/OB needs, it would ease the migration to another band at some point in the future. The ACMA would also need to decide upon a date by which this migration from the center gap would be complete, perhaps in about five years. If the 3575-3710 MHz band were made available for WAS: 7. How much spectrum in the band should be made available? Why? 8. What option(s) would you prefer for the management of incumbent FSS earth stations? Why? In particular, should FSS earth stations be “grandfathered”? If so, for how long? In general, what arrangements should be considered for the protection of earth stations? 9. What option(s) would you prefer for the management of incumbent fixed point-to-point services? Why? No Comment Licensing options 10. Which licensing option(s) would you prefer for WAS in the 2500-2690 MHz band? Why? QUALCOMM continues to believe the new “private park” licensing concept is virtually a “cousin” of the class licensing or unlicensed concept. Our views on the new “private park” concept are, therefore, consistent with our views conveyed to the ACMA in response to Proposal to Amend the Radiocommunications Act of 1992 – To allow the authorization of devices under class licenses in spectrum designated for spectrum licensing (section 36). In essence, QUALCOMM strongly believes that licensees should have the exclusive right to transmit in the spectrum for which they hold a license. QUALCOMM takes this position not out of any ill-will toward unlicensed technologies. QUALCOMM is developing 802.11n unlicensed technology, and believes that unlicensed technologies have an important role to play in local area, short range communications—such as inside buildings, in homes, and on campuses. QUALCOMM also believes, however, that unlicensed technologies are simply not suited to wide area, longer range communications. Only licensed services operating on spectrum dedicated exclusively to licensed services can provide coverage over wide areas. QUALCOMM does not believe that a “private park” licensee could start a wide area wireless business on the basis of a non-exclusive license. This is because no operator will spend the large amounts of money needed to build out a network without clear and undeniable protection from interference. Under the ACMA’s proposal, it is very possible that the day after one licensee has turned on its network, another licensee for the same spectrum and geographic area could turn on its network and cause interference. ACMA notes this new framework has similar characteristics to the non-exclusive licensing provisions outlined in FCC Report & Order 05-56. Importantly, we would like to emphasize that the FCC’s decision in this proceeding has come under significant criticism from a number of companies in the wireless industry. 4
  5. 5. Like the ACMA, the FCC proposed to rely on dynamic frequency selection and contention-based protocols, yet there has not been any showing that these technologies will actually work in this band as envisioned. While adopted by the FCC for the 3650 – 3700 MHz band, this non-exclusive licensing concept has not yet been implemented because the decision is subject to a large number of petitions for reconsideration. For these reasons, QUALCOMM urges the ACMA to reconsider its proposal for a new “private park” licensing concept and to adopt a “spectrum licensing” approach for the 2.5 GHz band. 11. What areas should the licences cover? (e.g. Australia-wide, capital cities, regional areas, state-wide) No Comment 12. If the 2500-2690 MHz band was allocated for WAS, and a block of spectrum in the band was preserved for ENG operation, how should the ENG spectrum be licensed? Why? No Comment 13. Which licensing option(s) would you prefer for WAS in the 3575-3710 MHz band? Why? No Comment 14. What areas should the licences cover? (e.g. Australia-wide, capital cities, regional areas, state-wide) No Comment General licensing issues 15. If WAS were authorized under a class licence or a private park (in either of these bands), what should the maximum equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) be? Why? 16. Is device registration necessary under a private park? If not, what other arrangements could be used to allow coordination? 17. Should aggregation of spectrum lots be allowed? If so, how should lots be aggregated (low, high or other)? QUALCOMM agrees aggregation of spectrum lots should be allowed as it enables interested bidders to acquire the amount of spectrum they believe is needed to build a viable network and would accommodate a range of business plans. The ACMA may also want to consider further sub-dividing the spectrum lots into 5 MHz blocks and notes this topic will be handled in a future ACMA consultation. Other issues 18. What other issues should ACMA consider? In considering the long term release of spectrum in the 520 – 820 MHz band for WAS, QUALCOMM urges the ACMA to ensure that mobile broadcasting services, which have already been commercially deployed in several countries around the world in the upper portion of this band, are also able to operate in the band. Based on survey and focus group results, QUALCOMM believes there is significant demand for mobile broadcast multimedia services in Australia and other countries around the world As the WAS Consultation paper notes, parts of 520 – 820 MHz may become available following the switch- off of analog television at which point there will be the opportunity to use the recovered spectrum for new and innovative services, such as mobile broadcasting. QUALCOMM fully supports this digital switchover plan as detailed in “Ready, Get Set, Go Digital – A Digital Action Plan for Australia,”7 and agrees this will “…enable more efficient use of broadcasting spectrum which will, in turn, free up more spectrum for new 7 “Ready, Get Set, Go Digital – A Digital Action Plan for Australia,” Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, November 2006. 5
  6. 6. services.” This process could involve a re-allocation of services within the 520 – 820 MHz band. In this regard, QUALCOMM urges the ACMA to identify and designate a harmonized sub-band within the ‘digital dividend’ for new mobile broadcasting services. The benefits of UHF spectrum harmonization for mobile broadcasting services include improved terminal performance, reduced network costs and improved compatibility with fixed reception broadcasting. Similar efforts are underway in Europe where the European Commission Radio Spectrum Policy Group (RSPG) adopted in February 2007 an “Opinion on EU Spectrum Policy Implications of the Digital Dividend”8 which was followed by a European Commission mandate to the CEPT / ECC Task Group 4 (TG4) to study the technical feasibility of a pan-European UHF sub-band harmonized for multimedia services. The first TG4 Report will soon be available which will be followed by an ECC Report outlining the technical guidelines for the implementation of mobile broadcast networks conforming to such a spectrum configuration. QUALCOMM notes that there are parallel spectrum activities on-going within the ACMA’s January 2007 Consultation on “Allocation of spectrum for new digital television services.” In this proceeding, Channel B spectrum is proposed to be allocated for new and innovative digital services, such as mobile broadcasting, by the end of 2007. We, therefore, urge the ACMA to ensure these parallel activities within the UHF band are aligned and opportunities for mobile broadcasting services within Australia are made clear. Conclusion In conclusion, QUALCOMM believes that the band 2500-2690 MHz is of great importance for the development of 3G technologies and their evolutions (such as HSPA+, LTE, UMB) due to its unique wide bandwidth. 3G technologies are forecasted to comprise 95 percent of the world’s mobile Broadband Wireless Access (BWA) subscriptions by the year 2010 whereas IEEE 802.16e, for example, is forecasted to comprise 2.5 percent. 9 Strategy Analytics also projects there will be 518 million mobile BWA users worldwide by 2010 and that HSPA and EV-DO will account for approximately 488 of those users. Further, QUALCOMM supports the band segmentation plan proposed in Option 2 and believes that the other options would not provide the expected benefits to either paired or un-paired operations. This will impact Australian consumers as it may lead to Australia-specific handsets which will be difficult, if not impossible, to be used to roam with other countries. QUALCOMM also proposes a possible alternative that accommodates existing electronic newsgathering and outside broadcast services. Should you have any questions, please contact me at +852 6348 6687 (mobile) or jgwelch@qualcomm.com. Respectfully, Julie Garcia Welch Director Government Affairs cc: Mr. Robert Hart, Director of Business Development, QUALCOMM Australia 8 See Document RSPG07-161at http://rspg.groups.eu.int/doc/documents/opinions/rspg07_161_final_op_digdiv.pdf. 9 Strategy Analytics “Beyond 3G: Looking for True Mobile Broadband,” November 2006. 6

×