Spectrum Framework Review

Spectrum Framework Review

Issued February 15, 2005

Executive Summary

1 BT has read with interest the Ofcom consultation document on the Spectrum Framework Review (SFR). We see this as a most important discussion document, and BT can support wholeheartedly the general principles of Ofcom's Spectrum Vision. Furthermore, BT interprets the 3 bullet points in §6.3 of the CD relating to fixed and mobile spectrum as a valuable and essential extension of this vision. However, we have found several areas of detail elsewhere within the Consultation Document that we believe require further consideration.

2 In particular, BT does not believe that the material in §3.5 and Annex H yet represents a workable solution to the management of spectrum rights, interference and change of use. We believe that they could lead to a complex and burdensome spectrum environment, and therefore question whether they could result in a workable spectrum market on a scale that would create the significant economic benefits which Ofcom have stated, and we agree, should be possible.

3 BT has noted that in the recently published Ofcom Statement on Liberalisation the proposals in the Spectrum Framework Review are positioned as an approach that could be explored in the future. There are further elements of this statement that indicate that Ofcom remains convinced of the need to proceed with care. BT would urge that Ofcom does indeed retain this as its guiding principle.

4 If we interpret the Liberalisation Statement correctly, then BT could certainly offer support the approach set out within its pages. Time would therefore seem to be available to test and refine the "two tier rights" concepts, and BT would suggest that a full and frank industry discussion or working group may assist in achieving the required balance between progress and confidence levels. However, if the "two tier rights" concepts were intended to become the "more flexible" licence regime at an early stage, then our concerns as described within this response would remain firmly in place.

5 The SFR, and its introduction of the new element of restrictive rights that include the need to gain the approval of neighbouring users, is concurrent with the Statement on Liberalisation. Given this concurrence, BT believes it would be very helpful if Ofcom could confirm its intention to continue with the "twin track" approach to liberalisation involving both licence specific change of use by negotiation with Ofcom and the concept of generic licences with inherent usage flexibility. Furthermore, this confirmation could usefully include clarification as to the breadth of the scope of such licences, as originally set out in the liberalisation consultation document.

6 Returning to the proposals within the SFR itself, a key factor in our concern is Ofcom's move away from undertaking the evaluation of proposed changes of use. The implication in the SFR is that other neighbouring spectrum users, perhaps with competitive interests, determine the acceptability of such changes. Under such a system BT believes that there would need to be at least a laid-down process for such discussions with legal and regulatory safeguards, time scales and a route to appeal against unreasonable objections.

7 We believe much depends on how specific rights, current use and change of use are finally to be defined, as these will govern what will be possible within existing rights, and the extent to which the restrictive rights would come in to play. The full detail of this has clearly yet to be developed and until such time as the proposals become clear BT reserves its position over acceptance of the concepts and application of this two tier rights system.

8 BT would therefore encourage Ofcom to provide some practical examples of specific rights, such as might be applied to the different licence classes, in particular the more generic licences that were foreseen as methods of achieving liberalisation in the context of the Liberalisation consultation and recent statement.

9 Where change of use is to be dependent on bilateral negotiations, BT believes that clear guidance, and adequate basic information, would need to be available to allow the determination of which neighbours would need to be consulted for any such prospective change.

10 For an operator to value a spectrum opportunity and plan and self-certify the compliance of his system, and to be able to demonstrate such compliance to Ofcom or other spectrum users, it is vital that a licensee has clear and unambiguous rights and obligations independent of any other spectrum user. The present proposals do not give confidence that this will be achieved.

11 Annex H discusses how physical licence boundaries will be defined in geographical terms, and how the signal level limits at these boundaries will be controlled. BT supports the method for the geographical definition of such boundaries.

12 However, BT considers that greater pragmatism must be introduced into the setting of boundary signal level limits for licences, including practical time percentages for which the interference limits should not be exceeded. These will maximise spectrum efficiency and allow advantage to be taken the statistical benefits of interference mitigation practices and new technologies such as adaptive antennas.

13 BT sees significant difficulties in using a propagation model as the final arbiter in interference resolution, and cannot support that, but we can see the benefits of allowing propagation model results to provide evidence in such cases. In this context we question the suitability of Recommendation ITU-R P.1546. We suggest that if propagation models were to play a role in the application of spectrum rights, then a Recommendation such as ITU-R P.452, which in our view has better capabilities and greater scope for refinement, would be preferable. Its implementation would need to be carefully done with specified terrain and clutter databases (which would need to be generally available) and have the broad support of the spectrum user community.

14 BT suggests that there should be a periodic review of spectrum requirements for licence-exempt devices, and that any such review should take a wider remit, i.e. extending beyond traditional licence-exempt communications applications.

15 We believe it would be helpful if the SFR clarified how the concept of administrative incentive pricing will be used within the new framework and more precisely what its role will be beyond the current proposals that are the subject of a further separate and concurrent consultation.   

Download full response as a PDF document