This document summarizes interviews conducted with stakeholders regarding licensed shared access (LSA) and spectrum sharing in the UK. Key points from the interviews include: - Stakeholders see potential benefits of sharing but it is not a high priority beyond existing arrangements. Lack of transparency around supply and demand makes matching uses difficult. Incentives for sharing differ between commercial and public sectors. - Preferences were expressed for voluntary private arrangements over enforced sharing, with Ofcom facilitating. Concerns included complexity, protection zones, and handling dynamic arrangements. - Flexibility is needed for different applications and sharing combinations. Time sharing is less desirable than geographic. Limited regulator role is preferred. - Uncertainty exists around implementing European L

1. Plum Consulting, London | +44 (0)20 7047 1919 | www.plumconsulting.co.uk
Spectrum sharing and
licensed shared access
Tony Lavender and Tim Hogg
Presentation at Cluster 2
27th May 2015

2. Agenda
 Project and context
 Why the need for sharing
 Sharing in the UK
 Definition of LSA
 Spectrum trading
 Stakeholder interviews and responses
 Recommended areas for further work
 Discussion
© Plum 2015 1

3. Project and context
 The UK Spectrum policy Forum (UK SPF) has commissioned the project to
develop a view on a unified set of characteristics for Licensed Shared Access
(LSA)
・ There has been a considerable amount of policy work already done on LSA by
the European Commission, CEPT/ECC, equipment vendors and others
 Policy work now needs to progress to an understanding of the practical issues to
be addressed for LSA to be implemented. The project is intended to address the
following points in this respect:
・ An overview of the motivation for sharing focusing on LSA
・ Discussion of the proposed formats for LSA
・ Assessment of the relative merits of the current proposals
・ Summary of stakeholder views on the LSA approach and issues foreseen
 The output will be recommendations to the UK SPF on the LSA specification
taking account of inputs and analysis from the project
© Plum 2015 2

4. Why the need for sharing
 Growing demand for spectrum (and competing needs)
 Finding new spectrum is more of a challenge
 Clearance gets harder
© Plum 2015 3
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
Source: Ofcom, Cisco VNI, Plum Consulting
PB per month
Mobile data traffic projection in the UK
CAGR = 41% per annum

5. Sharing (1)
 Spectrum sharing can take several forms
© Plum 2015 4
Licence exempt Licensed
Technical conditions
Frequency
Geography
Time
Technical conditions

6. Sharing (2)
© Plum 2015 5
High
Licensed
Low
Medium
DSA
Medium
Low
Licence
exempt
High
Source: Ofcom
Reducing barriers to access
Increasing service range and quality

7. Sharing in the UK
 Sharing in the UK is not a new concept
・ Geographic static sharing between services in the UK (e.g. between FSS and
FS)
・ There is also some dynamic sharing (geography and time) with PMSE
(e.g.UHF)
 There is no inherent restriction in UK spectrum legislation/regulation/management
that prevents sharing
・ “Ofcom has the discretion to authorise use of any spectrum frequencies, for
any purpose, in line with its statutory duties”
 Ofcom has consulted on various modes of sharing over the past couple of years
mostly in the context of mobile and wireless data services
・ DSA/Geolocation databases (this is one area where legislation/regulation may
need to be changed)
 Our understanding is that Ofcom is supportive of LSA but has not yet consulted on
any specific guidance/regulation
© Plum 2015 6

8. Spectrum trading in the UK
 Spectrum trading is within the scope of the UK regime
・ Spectrum Trading Regulations 2011
 Trades provide for the possibility to lease as well as transfer spectrum
・ This could be one way into sharing
・ But not all licenses are tradable
・ And for some public sector use there are issues about what is actually licensed
and the rights of use
 Trading could go part of the way but not all
© Plum 2015 7

9. RSPG opinion on LSA (November 2013)
 The objective of an LSA approach is to grant additional spectrum rights of use in
specific bands on a shared basis allowing predictable QoS for all rights holders.
However, these arrangements will need sufficient flexibility in order to allow for the
incumbent to develop its network and to be able to take into account changes in
technology (both the incumbent and new LSA users), in accordance with its
spectrum rights of use.
 Balancing the impact on the incumbent and the usage constraints on any
additional user is a challenge. Administrations, when examining socio-economic
benefits would inter alia need to take into account (i) the conditions under which
existing assignments were made, including costs incurred, and (ii) the legitimate
expectations of the incumbent as well as LSA users.
 It will also be necessary to ensure that LSA arrangements do not adversely affect
competition, and thus that the spectrum assignment procedures settled in Member
States enable undertakings to apply for spectrum made available under a sharing
framework based on transparent and non-discriminatory conditions in conformity
with EU law.
© Plum 2015 8

10. ECC Report 205 (February 2014)
 ECC report 205 (February 2014)
・ LSA is a complementary spectrum management tool that fits under an “individual licensing
regime”.
・ LSA facilitates the introduction in a frequency band of new users while maintaining incumbent
services in the band.
・ LSA aims to ensure a certain level of guarantee in terms of spectrum access and protection
against harmful interference for both the incumbent(s) and LSA licensees.
・ LSA excludes concepts such as “opportunistic spectrum access”, “secondary use” or “secondary
service” where the applicant has no protection from primary user(s).
・ LSA licensees and incumbents operate different applications and are subject to different
regulatory constraints. They would each have exclusive individual access to a portion of
spectrum at a given location and time.
・ The first practical use case of LSA will be to provide access to additional spectrum for mobile
broadband services (MFCN).
 The implementation of LSA relies on the concept of a “sharing framework” that is under the
responsibility of the Administration / NRA. Its development requires the involvement of all relevant
stakeholders.
© Plum 2015 9

11. ECC Report 205 (2)
 The “sharing framework” can be understood as a set of sharing rules or sharing conditions that will
materialise the change, if any, in the spectrum rights of the incumbent(s) and define the spectrum,
with corresponding technical and operational conditions, that can be made available for alternative
usage under LSA.
 LSA impacts the national allocation of a frequency band, which is a sovereign decision on the
destination of this public resource.
 National administrations decide which existing applications need to be considered as incumbent
uses within the sharing framework and maintained in the long term according to national policy
objectives, and taking into account international obligations and community law in the case of EU
Member States.
 The Administration / NRA would set the authorisation process with a view to delivering, in a fair,
transparent and non-discriminatory manner, individual rights of use of spectrum to LSA licensees, in
accordance with the sharing framework defined beforehand.
 LSA does not prejudge the modalities of the authorisation process to be set by Administration /
NRAs taking into account national circumstances and market demand.
 LSA is not a tool to regulate the ECS market and is based on different principles than “Spectrum
trading”. It could nevertheless be necessary to check that competition is not adversely affected. The
possibility for a governmental entity to engage in trading its spectrum holdings is a national
institutional issue.
© Plum 2015 10

12. LSA (1)
© Plum 2015 11
Administrative implementation of LSA Functional implementation of LSA
Current approach LSA approach
Hierarchy of access based on whether primary
or secondary in National Frequency Allocation
Table
Effective use of the band – economic and
social value enhanced
First in time rule gives priority to incumbent
users
Compensation may be paid to incumbents

13. Inputs summary
 Sharing is not a new concept and it exists in UK spectrum management
 Ofcom already has quite wide scope in terms of licensing and sharing
 Most of the UK’s work on sharing has focused on white space and DSA
 LSA is mainly driven by work in Europe on gaining access to 2.3 GHz and
possibly 3.4-3.8 GHz spectrum for mobile broadband
 Conceptually LSA is reasonably well documented by ECC and others
 In the UK spectrum trading could go part of the way to something that is LSA like
but not all of the way
 In reality LSA is not yet a mainstream solution – it’s at the test stage (e.g. France)
© Plum 2015 12

14. Stakeholder interview questions
 We asked the following questions of stakeholders
・ Characteristics of LSA. Does LSA as currently described contains the
features stakeholders see as necessary for sharing?
・ LSA format. Is LSA as it is currently defined feasible?
・ Incentives to share. What incentives are necessary for sharing?
・ Spectrum. What frequency bands could be possible?
・ Coexistence criteria. How should protection/exclusion zones be approached
to deliver QOS expectations?
・ The future. How should the future plans of spectrum users be handled with
LSA?
・ Licenses. What do LSA licenses need to look like?
・ Spectrum pricing and fees. How should spectrum be priced for LSA?
・ Enforcement. Is there anything that needs to change for LSA?
© Plum 2015 13

15. Stakeholders interviewed
© Plum 2015 14
DCMS Nick Munn
Ofcom Rachel Clark
DMSF Anil
Vodafone Paul Rosbotham
EE Inge Hanse
BT Chris Cheeseman
Home Office Ari Toivonen
Arqiva Anirban Roy
ITV Greg Bensberg
TechUK Jane Humphreys
RED Pierre-Jean Muller
Utilities Adrian Grilli
Interviews completed
MOD ?
BBC ?
Qualcomm Luigi Ardito
Satellite/space ?
Microsoft Jim Beverage
Intel Graham Macdonald
Will also talk to if time permits

16. Responses
 A reminder of the points the project is intended to address:
・ An overview of the motivation for sharing focusing on LSA
・ Discussion of the proposed formats for LSA
・ Assessment of the relative merits of the current proposals
・ Summary of stakeholder views on the LSA approach and issues foreseen
© Plum 2015 15

17. Motivation for sharing
 All agree that sharing has the potential to provide more opportunity for access to
spectrum and to increase spectrum efficiency
 Respondents see sharing as important, but generally not as a priority beyond the
sharing that already takes place
・ Many haven’t really thought about LSA in detail and how it would apply to them
 For those with and interest in sharing, access to spectrum supply information can
be an issue
・ Transparency is a real issue on both supply and demand sides
・ As a result it is hard to match up supply and demand
 Incentives for sharing differ between the commercial sector and the public sector
© Plum 2015
16

18. Public sector
 Most public sector spectrum is not licensed by Ofcom
・ It functions under authorisations managed by other government departments
・ This presents a barrier to sharing (mainly with commercial entities) – RSA is
needed as a first step before anything else can be done in a public sector /
commercial arrangement
 The opaqueness of intra-governmental budgetary flows and the perceived risks
on AIP deter public sector spectrum managers from considering sharing
© Plum 2015 17
Commercial Public
Sharer
Incumbent
Commercial
Public

19. LSA format (1)
 There is a preference for private contractual arrangements rather than enforced
licensed sharing (i.e. done on a voluntary basis with Ofcom acting as a facilitator if
required)
・ Ofcom would put the resulting arrangement into new licenses but it does raise the
question whether the current WT Act and Ofcom’s powers are sufficient to do this?
Ofcom believe they are
・ There are questions to be addressed about the flow of money and what can pass
directly between the incumbent and sharer(s) and what flows through Ofcom
・ Also, what does sharing do to the overall value of the band?
 All believe simplicity is key for LSA to work and that over complex processes/systems
should be avoided where possible
・ LSA could be done on paper in some cases (so why is it any different to some of the
static arrangements already in place?)
 Certainty of access and quality of service for sharers has to be balanced against
retaining quality and flexibility for incumbents
・ The medium/longer term plans of both have to be taken into account and balanced
against incentives
© Plum 2015 18

20. LSA format (2)
 In a licensed shared environment interference takes on a greater importance
・ Concerns about how protection is built into the licence(s) and technical
conditions
・ A preference for conservative exclusion zones (based on what calculation?)
・ A concern about handling protection and QOS with LSA if the arrangement
becomes too dynamic
 Enforcement is an important issue
・ No one foresees the need for extra powers for Ofcom in this respect although
Ofcom would need to be responsive (i.e. have the resources available) where
their intervention is required
・ A key role for Ofcom would be to arbitrate if parties to a sharing agreement
could not resolve issues between themselves
・ For third party issues things remain as they are
© Plum 2015 19

21. LSA format (3)
 One size does not fit all – a generic adaptable sharing framework is required
・ Coexistence criteria depend on applications
・ Flexibility requirements depend on users
・ Any band
・ Many different sharing combinations
 Time sharing is less desirable than geographic sharing
・ More complex
・ Less likely that supply will match demand
 Limited role for regulator
・ Issue WT Act licences and collect fees
・ Arbitrate disputes
© Plum 2015 20

22. Sharing framework
Supply Demand
Flexibility Certainty
Maintain output
(and have option to
increase it)
Quality of service
and ability to make
viable investment
Incentives (revenue,
reduction of fees,
compensation)
Incentives (the
spectrum choice
and business case
makes sense)
© Plum 2015 21
Regulatory environment
• Voluntary
• Transparent
• Enforceable

23. View on current proposals for LSA
 There aren’t clear proposals for implementation of LSA in the UK
・ DCMS has not required it (it’s not clear what will trigger this other than a political
desire or something from Europe)
・ Ofcom has not so far handled a request for licensed shared access (although they
are anticipating this happening)
 What exists is the work done in Europe but there is not a decision or mandate from the
European Commission to put LSA to be put in place
 Will the EC ever mandate LSA?
 As a result there is uncertainty over how the current specification will be applied in the
UK:
・ How voluntary is voluntary? Will it ever be mandatory?
・ How will the provisions of the Authorisation Directive (i.e. awards be fair, transparent
and non-discriminatory) be applied?
© Plum 2015 22

24. Recommended areas for further work
© Plum 2015 23
Although LSA was not regarded as a high priority spectrum management issue
there are some clear conclusions on things that need to be addressed
 Ofcom clarify what can be done today to share spectrum (not just LSA) and that
there are few legislative barriers to sharing (if any – other than the geolocation
database issue)
 Transparency of usage and demand – build an accurate picture of sharing
opportunities – Ofcom & Government
 Incentives for the public sector to facilitate sharing – look again at the RSA
process and the institutional finance aspects
・Many of the issues here seem to be similar to those around spectrum trading
 Enforcement – Ofcom be clear about what it will do in a sharing environment

25. Discussion
© Plum 2015 24