Tero,
Re: Spectrum Allocation for 3G (Worldwide)
The issues surrounding spectrum allocation are not easy to understand (at least for me). The June 2 date for a decision by Brazil on spectrum allocation obviously relates to compromises (or lack of same) that may be made at the WRC meeting taking place in Istanbul. The article below is one of the best I have read on the spectrum issues that are being discussed in Istanbul now:
>> FIRED-UP 3G BACKERS SET TO FORCE WRC SPECTRUM CLASH
By Theresa Foley
CWI Online
21 February 2000
totaltele.com
Regional governments and terrestrial mobile and satellite operators are set to split at this year's World Radiocommunications Conference over competition for globally usable radio frequencies for third-generation mobile services.
Both industries are seeking spectrum allocations that will enable them to use at least some frequencies on a global basis. But the demands of the fast growing terrestrial mobile sector are expected to pit Europe and Japan, where mobile communications is strongest, against the U.S. government, which is resisting European proposals which would mean moving some federal and commercial services onto other frequencies.
After a string of false-starts with satellite network projects such as Iridium and Teledesic, the U.S. satellite industry, in particular, looks likely to be fighting a rearguard action to maintain its share of global spectrum.
Terrestrial and satellite systems are likely to have to share spectrum in some cases.
"Additional spectrum is needed for both, but most people agree terrestrial is more important," said Roger Smith, head of the space services department at the International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, and the coordinator of ITU preparations for WRC2000 in Istanbul in May.
The European position is that, as far as possible, spectrum for third-generation mobile should be contiguous and allocated on a global basis, rather than letting each country use a different part of the waveband.
If the Americas end up in a different frequency range from the rest of the world, mobile terminals would have to shift frequency as a user roamed among the regions, just as GSM does.
"For mobile roaming, you need to have worldwide harmonized spectrum," said Josef Huber, vice chairman of the UMTS Forum, London, and senior vice president at Siemens AG, Munich.
However, the U.S. government's position paper, seen by CWI this month, indicates that spectrum in the 1-3 gigahertz band could be released for broadband mobile. The U.S. proposal would only set aside the key 2500-2690 megahertz band, which the UMTS Forum wants for third-generation services, for study.
No agreement "There is no agreement worldwide on a common band," said Gail Schoettler, the U.S. ambassador to the WRC.
A negotiating group of U.S. industry and government representatives that included BellSouth Corp., Bell Atlantic, Iridium, Lucent Technologies Inc., MCI WorldCom and Sprint, worked out the proposal for a U.S. government position.
"The outcome is likely to be multiple bands and a plan that takes several years to implement," said Schoettler.
But even U.S. analysts agree that the U.S. government and companies are under pressure to admit that the European idea of a harmonized spectrum allocation should take precedence.
"The stakes are high for the U.S. industry," said Walda Roseman, president of consulting firm CompassRose International, of Washington DC. "[It needs to] find solutions with the U.S. government to match some of the spectrum that others in the Americas region and elsewhere will be using."
While the bandwidth plan for third-generation mobile is technically complex, economically important and politically sensitive, the terrestrial mobile community appears to have laid the groundwork to get its new allocation.
For IMT 2000, terrestrial mobile groups want 160 MHz of new spectrum allocated on top of bandwidth already designated. UMTS Forum's Huber said 187 MHz was initially agreed as a requirement by operators, manufacturers and regulators worldwide. The U.S. proposal is for just 120 MHz.
The total spectrum requirement calculated by the UMTS Forum was 580 MHz, but nearly 400 MHz of that is already allocated, leaving the spectrum still needed for third generation services at about 190 MHz.
"It would be optimum to have the same frequency worldwide," said Leslie Taylor, a spectrum consultant and president of Leslie Taylor Associates, Washington DC, "but it doesn't look achievable given the allocations we have in the United States to other services, including U.S. government, PCS and various other services."
A multiple frequency allocation, where different countries use different bands for IMT 2000 terminals, will make handsets for roaming heavier and more expensive, Taylor said. To have a harmonized global allocation would simplify manufacturing, reduce cost and make it easier to roam.
But, said Taylor: "Without it, it won't be impossible. [Manufacturers] have shown you can do a lot with the handsets."
Increased complexity For satellites carrying third-generation mobile services, however, having the same frequency allocated globally is more important than for terrestrial mobile systems. The global satellite systems would face "geometrically increased complexity" in designing for frequency shifts as a user roams from place to place, especially for low Earth orbit constellations of satellites that are moving over the Earth instead of holding one spot.
Satellite mobile handsets already are noticeably heavier than terrestrial ones, and the burden of frequency shifting for both the handsets and the spacecraft would be difficult to work around.
Global spectrum demands The three regions of the world, as defined by the International Telecommunication Union, came up with entirely different needs for third-generation mobile spectrum in preparatory analysis. In region one, which contains Europe, Africa and parts of Asia, the highest amount, 555 megahertz, is needed; in region two, the Americas, 390 MHz is required; and in region three, the Asia-Pacific, the requirement is 480 MHz. To reach the consensus of 160 MHz total for a global allocation of new spectrum, each region deducted the already reserved spectrum from the total, and came up with a requirement for new spectrum in the 160 MHz range.
"The difficult job now," said Josef Huber, vice chairman of the UMTS Forum, London, and senior vice president at Siemens AG, Munich, "is to find the bands."
That is where the United States and Europe disagree. Europe and administrations in the Asia-Pacific have agreed in the last few months on allocating a new solid block in the 2.5-gigahertz area, in addition to considering the bands 806-960 MHz and 1710-1930 MHz.
"Europe is not proposing new allocations but the identification of a range of frequencies within which each country would be able to select the appropriate band, according to its own requirement, and at the time frame it prefers," said Francois Rancy, director, spectrum planning and international affairs, at the Agence Nationale des Frequences, Paris.
Bands around 2,000 MHz were allocated at WRC-92. Now Europe proposes adding the following: 806-906 MHz (GSM bands); 1710-1885 MHz (bands for DECT, PCS and GSM 1800); and 2500-2690 MHz (new spectrum).
The United States had identified a portion of the spectrum, from 700 MHz to 2.5 GHz, as the place where pieces of bandwidth can be carved out for third-generation mobile.
"Altogether, the bands end up at 160 MHz, but not [in] one contiguous band, but several blocks," Huber said. "In the Americas it is not a harmonized situation for the region. From country to country the spectrum could lie in different bands."
Europe's IMT 2000 plan has met opposition from non-U.S. administrations on other grounds. Countries such as India, Australia and much smaller nations question whether they actually need that much spectrum with their expected mobile penetration rates in 10 years.
The ITU, of Geneva, will host the World Radiocommunication Conference series in May.
Information : info@total.emap.com URL : totaltele.com
¸ EMAP Media 2000 <<
Note: Current US cellular & PCS spectrum is as follows:
Traditional Cellular Spectrum in the US (Analog & 2G digital)
Since the early 1980's, the FCC has set aside frequencies located around the 800 MHz range for the analogue cellular telephone industry. In addition, the traditional cellular carriers who offer analog service in the 800 MHz range are now converting their systems to digital, and now operate both analog and digital systems in the 800 MHz range. To make use of both their analog and digital networks, these carriers offer "dual mode" phones that provide digital cellular where available, and automatically switch to analog when there is no digital coverage.
PCS Spectrum (2G Digital)
To provide the PCS licenses, the FCC divided the U.S. into approximately 500 small geographic areas known as Basic Trading Areas, or BTAs. Each BTA has six sets of licenses, which generally means that up to six different PCS carriers will be competing in any given market, in addition to whatever traditional cellular carriers are already providing service in those markets and in addition to Nextel and other carriers.
The spectrum allocation for broadband PCS is in the 1850 to 1990 MHz range. Blocks A, B, and C each containing thirty MHz and Blocks D, E, and F each contain ten MHz.
A: 1850-1865 MHz and 1930-1945 MHz
B: 1870-1885 MHz and 1950-1965 MHz
C: 1895-1910 MHz and 1975-1990 MHz
D: 1865-1870 MHz and 1945-1950 MHz
E: 1885-1890 MHz and 1965-1970 MHz
F: 1890-1895 MHz and 1970-1975 MHz
- Eric - |
