Howard Slawner 350 Bloor Street East, 6th Floor Toronto, ON M4W 0A1 [email protected] o 416.935.7009 m 416.371.6708
August 10, 2018
Via email: ic.spectrumauctions-encheresduspectre.ic@canada.ca
Aline Chevrier Senior Director, Spectrum Licensing and Auction Operations Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada 235 Queen Street, 6th floor Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H5
Re: Canada Gazette Notice No. SLPB-004-18: Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band
Please find the reply comments of Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (Rogers) in response to Canada Gazette, Part I, June 16, 2018, Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18).
Rogers thanks the Department for the opportunity to provide input on this important issue.
Yours very truly,
Howard Slawner Vice President – Regulatory Telecom HS/pg
Attach.
Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band SLPB‐004‐18
Reply Comments of Rogers Communications Canada Inc. August 10, 2018
Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
Table of Contents Page
Executive Summary 2 Introduction 4 Rogers’ Reply Comments of Other Parties Q1 Timelines for 5G ecosystems for 3500 MHz & 3800 MHz bands 4 Q2 Changes to Canadian Table of Frequency Allocations 6 Q3 Flexible Use in 3450–3475 MHz band 7 Q4 Spectrum Sharing in 3400–3450 MHz band 8 Q5 ISED proposals for existing Spectrum Licensees 10 Q6 Alternative proposals for existing Spectrum Licensees 16 Q7 Revised Band Plan in 3450–3650 MHz frequency range 20 Q8 Measures to limit Interference with proposed TDD band plan 21 Q9 Aligning issuance of Flexible Use Licences between Incumbents 22 and Future Licensing Process Q10 Importance of Price Discovery in Licensing Process 24 Q11 Protection and Notification provisions for Incumbent Licensees 25 Q12 Alternative Transition plans, or variations to Times proposed 26 Q13 Intermittent Interference, including cross-border, within 3450– 27 3650 MHz band Q14 Optimizing use of 3650–3700 MHz band 28 Q15 Importance of 3700–4200 MHz band to future FSS operations 31 Q16 Registration of Unlicensed Operators in 3700–4200 MHz band 33 to assist in Frequency Management Q17 Optimizing usage of 3700–4200 MHz band between Current 34 Services and Developing Technologies to provide New Services Q18 Challenges and Considerations related to Coexistence of Mobile 36 and/or Fixed Wireless Access in 3700–4200 MHz band
Page 1 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
Executive Summary
E1. The consultation record shows that stakeholders see the 3500 MHz and 3800 MHz spectrum bands as a critical input for satisfying the growth in terrestrial demand for advanced connectivity services in Canada. It is also clear that these stakeholders see the spectrum in the broader 3300-4200 MHz range as a key global pioneer band for enabling the deployment of 5th generation (5G) wireless technology, both mobile and fixed wireless. This spectrum will support the deployment of advanced next-generation wireless technologies by terrestrial facilities-based operators, with the arrival of 5G technology having the potential to revolutionize how we work, study and play. Rogers continues to invest heavily in advanced wireless telecommunications networks across Canada and requires access to both our current and additional spectrum. The Department should take all necessary steps to accelerate the release of 3500 MHz and 3800 MHz spectrum – and other 5G bands – while ensuring incumbent 3500 MHz licensees, who have met all their licence conditions, are able to retain their spectrum in line with past decisions.
E2. No alternative proposal is superior to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada taking steps to make 300 MHz of exclusively, licensed spectrum available through this consultation. An initial 300 MHz will provide multiple network operators access to the big blocks of spectrum necessary to deliver the benefits of 5G to Canadian consumers and business. Only by providing facilities- based operators with sufficient amounts of the spectrum they need to power their networks will all Canadians truly benefit from the innovative consumer and industrial services that 5G can deliver. Making 300 MHz of spectrum immediately available is, thus, critical for the continuation of existing services, competition in the wireless market, and availability of new 5G services for Canadians.
E3. The Department should also move quickly to release additional spectrum in future extensions of the band, expanding the band up to 4200 MHz. Satellite operators provide no evidence of demand for C-band services outside of the Far North and remote areas of Canada. The Department should immediately transition satellite operations out of at least 3700-3750 MHz. It should further initiate clearing satellite operations from the entire 3700-4200 MHz range as soon as practical for the southern parts of Canada, and everywhere that alternatives to satellite services in this band are widely and economically available.
E4. Incumbent 3500 MHz licensees that have fully met their licence conditions should retain two-thirds of their spectrum based on the Department’s own 2500 MHz precedent and in recognition of incumbents having invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the face of ongoing and significant technology uncertainty. A two-thirds
Page 2 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
retention of 3500 MHz licences is both justified and good policy, and it is the best option for delivering 5G services to all Canadians. Clawing back unjustified amounts of deployed spectrum to simply auction it back to providers will reduce the capital available for new network deployments, investments that ensure all Canadians can benefit from 5G services.
E5. In order to achieve the large, contiguous bandwidth necessary that network operators require to ensure Canadians to fully benefit from all the innovations and performance that 5G networks can deliver, new blocks auctioned in the future extension bands should automatically be assigned contiguously to the spectrum available through auction and to incumbent licensees through this consultation. The Department should include a spectrum contiguity provision in its new 3500 MHz policy and a condition of licence for the new 3500 MHz and 3800 MHz flexible use licences, requiring spectrum block exchanges whenever the band is extended.
E6. The Department must seize the opportunity of the 3500 MHz consultation to foster both innovation and competition in Canada. Increasing the amount of spectrum immediately available to facilities-based operators through this consultation to 300 MHz, moving to rapidly expand the band upwards to as high as 4200 MHz, and implementing provisions to ensure spectrum contiguity for new and incumbent licensees will help protect and promote wireless competition in Canada. These policy actions will also allow incumbent licensees to retain two-thirds of their spectrum, respecting both the Department’s own precedent and incumbents’ investments in the band.
Page 3 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
Introduction
1. Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (Rogers) welcomes the opportunity to reply to comments filed by other parties in response to SLPB-004-18: Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band1 (the Consultation), posted on Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada’s (ISED or the Department) website on July 16, 2018.
2. Rogers stated its position on all of the issues raised in the Consultation in its comments of July 12, 2018. This reply is limited to comments on proposals made by other parties. Failure to address any specific issue raised by other parties should not be taken by the Department as Rogers’ acquiescence with the position.
Rogers’ Reply to Comments of Other Parties
Q1: ISED is seeking comments on its assessment of the timelines identified for the development of an equipment ecosystem for 5G technologies in the 3500 MHz and 3800 MHz bands, and whether the timelines will be the same in both bands.
3. There is wide agreement with ISED’s assessment of the timelines for the development of an equipment ecosystem for 5G in the 3500 MHz and 3800 MHz bands. There is also wide agreement that band n78 (3300-3800 MHz) equipment will be available before widespread availability of the band n77 ecosystem (3300- 4200 MHz).2 With a robust equipment ecosystem rapidly developing, the Department must make all efforts to accelerate the regulatory timelines for all the priority 1 spectrum bands, including the 3500 MHz band and the millimetre wave (mmWave) bands.
4. Rogers agrees with Telus that the Department should aim to release a technical, licensing, and policy framework for the 3500 MHz band in mid-2019 and hold the
1 ISED, SLPB‐004‐18: Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (Consultation); http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt‐ gst.nsf/eng/sf11401.html. 2 Bell Comments, para 19; Telus Comments, para 16; Shaw Comments, para 38; Quebecor Comments, para 12; Cogeco Comments, para 25; SaskTel Comments, para 42‐43; ABC Communications, para 16; Seaside Wireless, pg 3; Ericsson Comments, pg 7; Huawei Comments, pg 2; Nokia Comments, pg 7; BCBA Comments, para 10.
Page 4 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
3500 MHz competitive licensing process in early 2020.3 The Department should also provide clear guidance for timing of the expansion 3800 MHz bands and additional 5G spectrum bands, critical information for facilities-based operators as they develop their future network deployment plans and continue to make their current networks 5G-ready. The U.S. and Asian markets are moving much faster in 5G bands and Canada cannot afford to lag behind if we are to be leaders in the new 5G innovation economy.
5. CCI believes the 3800 MHz band equipment ecosystem availability will take longer than the Department’s projections due to the legacy of C-band FSS deployments slowing development, though they are unique in expressing such a view.4 With the U.S. accelerating their process to clear additional spectrum in the 3700-4200 MHz range for flexible use,5 especially as the U.S. 3500 MHz band seems unlikely to be 5G-ready in the short term, it is clear that the band n77 ecosystem will follow quickly after n78. In Bell’s view, 5G services cannot be fully realized on the small Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) radio channels, so there is little incentive for U.S. operators to upgrade from 4G LTE equipment; as such, they believe the U.S. is likely to move to band n77 in the long term to harness the wide bandwidth benefits of 5G.6
6. Amongst operators, Telus notes that all leading chipset suppliers will release commercial 5G New Radio (NR) products supporting band n78 in 2018, while Bell expects the first commercial Non-Stand Alone 5G equipment to be available as soon as 2019.7 Shaw and Telus both see 5G flagship smartphones becoming broadly available in 2020.8 These views are shared by infrastructure vendors, with Ericsson stating that 3500 MHz 5G devices will be available in 2019, with Asian operators looking to launch 5G in 2020.9 Nokia shares that they are actively working on launching commercial radio products in late 2018, and there is substantial global demand to deploy in 3500 MHz this year that should result in various levels of availability in Asia in 2019 and 2020.10 Huawei states that, globally, they expect that 5G operations based on 5G NR standards will become
3 Telus Comments, para 23. 4 CCI Comments, pg 2. 5 FCC, NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING AND ORDER 18‐122. 6 Bell Comments, para 20. 7 Telus Comments, para 19; Bell Comments, para 22. 8 Telus Comments, para 16; Shaw Comments, para 43. 9 Ericsson Comments, pg 7‐8. 10 Nokia Comments, pg 7.
Page 5 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
available in 2019 and broad deployment, including handsets, will accelerate in 2020.11
7. Rogers agrees with this consensus view that the equipment ecosystem for 5G in the 3500 MHz band is advancing rapidly and this band will be one of the first 5G bands to be commercially deployed in many nations, as highlighted in the Lemay- Yates report submitted by Rogers.12 However, in order to deliver the maximum benefits of 5G to Canadians, the Department must ensure that its policies will deliver the wide bandwidths and permit use of the innovative technologies that the emerging 3500 MHz ecosystem is designed to use. Shaw also highlights that if Canada wants to be in the leading wave of global 5G deployments, ISED must move quickly on announcing related technical policies.13
8. The Department must ensure Canadian facilities-based operators have access to wide bandwidths of up to 100 MHz in the 3500 MHz band in order to deliver the full benefits of 5G services, and should expand the immediately available spectrum for exclusively licensed flexible use up to 300 MHz or more. In addition, the Department should move to quickly consult on and update technical policy frameworks and relevant Standard Radio System Plans (SRSP) and Radio Standards Specifications (RSS) to ensure they are updated for new radio technologies such as Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO) and new wireless transmission protocols. Once the proper regulatory frameworks are in place, Canadian operators will be able to ramp up and expand the investments already taking place to make networks 5G-ready.
Q2: ISED is seeking comments on the proposals for:
adding a primary mobile allocation to the 3450–3475 MHz band removing the radiolocation allocation in the 3450–3500 MHz band making the corresponding changes to the Canadian Table of Frequency Allocations
9. There is unanimous support from all parties responding to the Department’s proposals to add a primary mobile allocation to the 3450-3475 MHz band, remove the radiolocation allocation in the 3450-3500 MHz band, and make the
11 Huawei Comments, pg 2. 12 Lemay‐Yates Associates Inc., Enabling the 3.3 GHz to 4.2 GHz Band for 5G in Canada, July 2018. (LYA Report) 13 Shaw Comments, para 43.
Page 6 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
corresponding changes to the Canadian Table of Frequency Allocations.14 A number of commenters highlight the advantage of expanding the amount of spectrum available for flexible use services and the benefit of wide channel bandwidths.
10. Rogers continues to support the Department’s Q2 proposals and that it should make any additional changes required to make at least 300 MHz immediately available for exclusively licensed flexible use, while rapidly moving to open up as much of the broader 3300-4200 MHz range as possible, as quickly as possible. Only by ensuring networks have access to wide, contiguous bandwidths of 100 MHz or more in the 3500 MHz and 3800 MHz bands will Canadians fully benefit from the next generation services that 5G connectivity can deliver.
Q3: ISED is seeking comments on the proposal to allow flexible use in the 3450– 3475 MHz band.
11. ISED’s proposal to allow flexible use in the 3450-3475 MHz band is supported by nearly every submission that responded to Q3,15 with the few not actively supporting the proposal not objecting. Shaw’s response is representative of the submissions, stating, “Uniform technical rules throughout the band will enhance the utility of the band and provide regulatory certainty. A flexible use designation gives operators the ability to use the spectrum for different purposes, encouraging innovation and allowing for greater spectral efficiency.”16 Xplornet supports flexible use being allowed across the entire 3400-3800 MHz range, which increases the amount of spectrum immediately available by more than 100 MHz, while Ecotel emphasizes that flexible use should not permit the use of any cognitive system or dynamic database assignment.17 Rogers strongly agrees with both positions.
14 Bell Comments, para 32; Telus Comments, para 25; Shaw Comments, para 44; Quebecor Comments, para 20; Cogeco Comments, para 26; Xplornet Comments, pg 16‐17; SaskTel Comments, para 44; ABC Communications, para 18; CCI Comments, pg 3; Ecotel Comments, para 9; Seaside Wireless, pg 3; Sogetel Comments, para 21; Ericsson Comments, pg 9; Huawei Comments, pg 3; Nokia Comments, pg 8; SSi Micro Comments, para 19; EORN Comments, para 18; CanWISP Comments, para 13; BCBA Comments para 11. 15 Bell Comments, para 32; Telus Comments, para 25; Shaw Comments, para 44; Quebecor Comments, para 24; Cogeco Comments, para 27; SaskTel Comments, para 46; ABC Communications, para 20; CCI Comments, pg 3; Seaside Wireless, pg 4; Ericsson Comments, pg 9; Huawei Comments, pg 3; Nokia Comments, pg 8; PIAC Comments, para 7; EORN Comments, para 19; CanWISP Comments, para 15; BCBA Comments, para 16. 16 Shaw Comments, para 45. 17 Xplornet Comments, pg 17; Ecotel Comments, para 10.
Page 7 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
12. SSi Micro states that flexible use is a positive development for deploying in remote areas.18 We agree with the principle but note this deployment flexibility also applies to suburban and rural service areas where wireline networks are continuing to push deeper into outlying areas, which also sees the boundaries of mobile network coverage continually expand. Rogers continues to recommend that the service rules, when adopted, be aligned across the entire 3450-3650 MHz band (3450- 3750 MHz) to provide maximum flexibility to operators and service continuity to users.
Q4: ISED is seeking comments regarding interest in sharing spectrum between radiolocation and other services in the 3400–3450 MHz band, and options for doing so.
13. Most submissions take the same position as Rogers, that the Department should not pursue any dynamic access (nor opportunistic access) database system in 3400-3450 MHz at this time, as the technology is still in a nascent development stage, and instead focus on providing flexible use licences with geographic exclusion zones.19
14. Xplornet suggests, similar to Rogers, that the Department should relocate existing lightly licensed operators in the 3650-3700 MHz Wireless Broadband Service (WBS) band to 3400-3450 MHz. Xplornet views such a relocation as both offering better protection for WBS licensees from potential interference of mobile users and allowing more spectrum to be cleared for a more efficient allocation. Relocation of WBS licensees would thus increase the amount of spectrum immediately available for exclusively licensed use.20 Rogers continues to believe this is an ideal policy outcome, along with immediately reallocating (at least) 50 MHz in the C-band to provide a minimum initial allotment of 300 MHz for exclusively licensed 5G networks.
15. Xplornet notes their support of relocating WBS licensees is contingent on minimal impact to the operations of existing rural ISPs using the current 3650-3700 MHz band.21 Rogers continues to believe there will be limited technical challenges for
18 SSi Micro Comments, para 20. 19 Bell Comments, para 34; Shaw Comments, para 46; SaskTel Comments, para 50 & 55; CCI Comments, pg 3; Ericsson Comments, pg 9‐10; Huawei Comments, pg 3. 20 Xplornet Comments, pg 18. 21 Xplornet Comments, pg 18.
Page 8 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
most current WBS users, a view which is supported by comments from ABC Communications,22 and no greater disruption from moving WBS licensees to an updated band plan. However, we would support the Department providing assistance, if required, from auction revenues to facilitate the move and provide more 5G spectrum in the competitive licensing process.
16. Shaw suggests that spectrum sharing within potential exclusion zones in 3400- 3450 MHz can be achieved by applying advanced technologies and antenna systems or “allowing mobile use of spectrum in specific indoor and underground locations, where it would not interfere with radiolocation services.”23 SaskTel notes that where geographical separation is not possible, “LTE or 5G RF carriers in the 3400-3450 MHz band could be combined with other frequency bands and blocks using carrier aggregation techniques.”24 In SaskTel’s view, this could result in potential interference from a radiolocation source only causing a reduction in performance and data throughput rather than a complete loss of service, which may be acceptable to some operators. Rogers supports both these views in principle but believes that the spectrum is best utilized by relocating current WBS licensees into the 3400-3450 MHz band.
17. While there is some moderate support for dynamic sharing, it is usually with the caveat that further investigation of its efficacy is needed or as a last resort if other methods, like a light licensing regime, are insufficient to manage interference.25 However, as Bell states, dynamic sharing technology appears inappropriate outside of a multi-operator core network (MOCN) model, especially in TDD deployments where synchronisation is required.26 Quebecor also highlights the challenges associated with the unproven technology, stating:
En effet, ces exploitants doivent se conformer à toute une kyrielle de standards techniques, de qualité de service (QoS) et de qualité d’expérience (QoE). Or, exiger le partage en temps réel du spectre risquera à coup sûr de compromettre la capacité des exploitants à se conformer aux standards auxquels ils sont astreints, avec comme résultat des offres de services de qualité et de fiabilité inférieures (ce qui est d’autant plus vrai [et encore moins tolérable] dans le contexte de la 5G).27
22 ABC Communications Comments, para 48. 23 Shaw Comments, para 47. 24 SaskTel Comments, para 55. 25 Cogeco Comments, para 28; ABC Communications, para 24‐25; Seaside Wireless, pg 4; BCBA Comments, para 17 26 Bell Comments, para 33. 27 Quebecor Comments, para 28.
Page 9 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
18. CanWISP appears to agree that dynamic sharing technologies are not yet advanced enough to properly function but believes they should be added to regulatory frameworks today regardless of their current state of development.28 The Department should reject such proposals, as national and regional Canadian facilities-based operators have been consistent in their view that opportunistic sharing technology is still years away from commercial deployment and has substantial technical, regulatory, and business challenges to overcome before it can become a reality. Once technical challenges have been solved, trials have proven successful and all stakeholders have a better understanding of the implications of the technology, the Department should then launch a comprehensive consultation process to ensure such a fundamental change in spectrum planning and usage is in the public interest.
19. Telus and Quebecor, also looking ahead in the band, suggest that the Department use this consultation to discontinue use of radiolocation operation in 3400-3450 MHz and reallocate the band for flexible use on a primary basis.29 We would support such an approach as it would assist in increasing the amount of available spectrum in the broader 3300-4200 MHz range over time to facilities-based terrestrial operators in a band that is expected to be a cornerstone of 5G, benefiting all Canadian consumers and businesses.
20. However, the technological benefits of 5G networks will only be truly achieved if networks have access to wide, contiguous bandwidths of up to 100 MHz or more. Designating 3400-3450 MHz as flexible use on a primary basis, moving current WBS licensees from 3650-3700 MHz, and repacking satellite users above 3750 MHz will open up 300 MHz for immediate, exclusive licensing. In the longer term, it could serve as an important step to opening the entire 3300-4200 MHz range in Canada for flexible use.
Q5: ISED is seeking comments on the expected impacts of the following options with regards to the continuation of existing services, competition in the Canadian marketplace and availability of new 5G services for Canadians.
21. After reviewing all the comments in this consultation, Rogers continues to believe that the Department’s best option for incumbent 3500 MHz licensees, potential new competitors, and Canadians currently being served or looking forward to accessing
28 CanWISP Comments, para 28‐21. 29 Telus Comments, para 32; Quebecor Comments, para 29.
Page 10 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
mobile 5G services, is to immediately expand the amount of spectrum available for exclusive flexible use licensing to a minimum of 300 MHz. The LYA Report supports an immediate expansion of the band and demonstrates one way that the Department can do so in the short term.30 Increasing the band to 300 MHz will allow current licensees to retain two-thirds of their spectrum, as per the Department’s 2500 MHz precedent, and still meet all ISED’s policy goals of the continuation of existing services, competition in the Canadian marketplace and availability of new 5G services for Canadians.
22. This is especially true in light of severe challenges that all licensees have been operating under. As the Department is well aware of, the device ecosystem was slow to develop in a Canadian band plan that was not replicated elsewhere in the world and service providers were often forced to deploy non-future proof technologies. These challenges can be seen in statements from small rural operators like Comcentric who share that the equipment they use may not be able to easily coexist with 3GPP-based products like LTE,31 and thus presumably 5G services. Xplornet and Seaside Wireless highlight how they initially deployed 4G WiMax services (due to earlier availability) but are upgrading to 4G LTE due to its superiority to provide more robust connections and faster speeds.32 However, operators were limited in being able to deploy more mainstream and superior connectivity technologies during the early days of 3500 MHz deployments.
23. Indeed, the 4G LTE ecosystem only became available near the end of the initial 3500 MHz Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) licence terms. The ecosystem is based on a TDD band plan (LTE bands 42 and 43), not the FDD band plan that Canada currently employs, making network roll-outs that much more uncertain. Licences were renewed on a one-year basis and the Department had publically announced their intention to add a mobile allocation, further complicating the ability of large service providers to provide service to Canadians or businesses in urban and suburban areas using the spectrum, when service could not be guaranteed long term.
24. In spite of this uncertainty, 3500 MHz FWA licensees, like the Inukshuk Wireless Partnership (Inukshuk), continued to invest hundreds of millions of dollars to deploy networks and fully meet their conditions of licence. Leveraging the Inukshuk network, Bell is expanding a commercial Wireless-to-the-home (WTTH) fixed wireless offering based on the latest generation of 4G LTE equipment, network
30 LYA Report, p. 35‐36. 31 Comcentric Comments, 32 Seaside Wireless Comments, pg 8; Xplornet Comments, para 30.
Page 11 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
deployments and spectrum that will serve as their foundation to providing 5G services.33 Rogers and Bell have been actively serving fixed wireless customers, independently, since at least 2013 with LTE technology, and have worked with subordinate licensees since 2011 to increase coverage to Canadians. All conditions of licence have been, and continue to be, fully met, as can be seen in the annual renewal of Inukshuk’s licences.
25. Incumbent 3500 MHz FWA licensees who took the substantial financial and technical risks to pursue their own strategic objectives should not now be penalized and have significant amounts of their spectrum taken away. After all, licensees that have fully met their conditions of licence have demonstrated they have been working to achieve the Department’s number one policy objective for the 3500 MHz band, to “foster innovation, investment and the evolution of wireless networks by enabling the development and adoption of 5G technologies”.34 Taking the spectrum away from incumbent licensees simply to re-auction it back to them will not achieve any of those goals.
26. While Inukshuk and other small licensees continued to take on the risk and uncertainty, some licensees, like Telus, sold virtually all of their 3500 MHz FWA licences and exited the band.35 Requesting that the Department reclaim the majority of the 3500 MHz band spectrum is an entirely self serving tactic to address their own strategic shortcomings now that 5G technology has evolved with the 3500 MHz band poised to become a global pioneer band. As Seaside Wireless stated recently, “Liberating and reassigning this spectrum would be unfair to current licensees, when just two years ago Telus transferred its remaining 3500MHz licenses to Xplornet. It is completely inappropriate for Telus (in particular) now to suggest that spectrum be expropriated and re-auctioned.”36
27. Additionally, most incumbent 3500 MHz licensees do not view the addition of a mobile allocation to the existing fixed as a fundamental reallocation, especially as many service providers plan to continue offering the same services to the same customers under their new flexible use licences – often with the exact same network and user equipment they are using today. Bell, Xplornet, Comcentric, Sogetel, ABC Communications, CCI, Twin Island Communications, Comcentric, and Enbridge, in addition to Rogers, all indicate they are providing fixed wireless
33 Bell Comments, para 36. 34 ISED, Consultation, para 10. 35 Telus, 2016 Annual Report; http://about.telus.com/investors/annualreport2016/files/pdf/en/TELUS%202016%20annual%20report.pdf. 36 Seaside Wireless Communications Reply Comments, Spectrum Outlook Consultation, para 12.
Page 12 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
service today using primary or subordinate 3500 MHz FWA licences and, whether large or small, plan to continue to providing these services into the future.
28. Some parties, like Telus, wish to claw back large amounts of 3500 MHz FWA licences based on the addition of mobile to the current fixed wireless allocation.37 However, Telus is incorrect. This is not a fundamental reallocation, such as when the Department replaced the broadcasting allocation with a mobile allocation in the 700 MHz band. Nor is it the kind of fundamental reallocation that will result from converting spectrum like the 800 MHz Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) band from legacy narrow channel push-to-talk services to standard commercial mobile broadband.38 In fact, Telus made a lengthy argument in their comments during the Consultation on the Spectrum Outlook 2018 to 2022, stating the conversion of the 800 MHz band was a “high priority” for Telus and that they had already carried out trials in the band39 to ensure they are able to deploy commercial mobile broadband services on the radically different network architectures and equipment after the fundamental reallocation. Yet, as the holder of the largest amount 800 MHz licences, Telus did not suggest they should return any of their ESMR spectrum as a result of their support of a fundamental reallocation in the band.
29. Further supporting the position against any significant return of 3500 MHz spectrum, Bell highlights the fact that the Department did not require TerreStar to return any of their AWS-4 spectrum when the Department added a terrestrial mobile allocation to spectrum that initially possessed, and maintains, a satellite service designation.40 If adding a terrestrial mobile allocation to satellite service spectrum did not entail a fundamental reallocation requiring a return of spectrum, it is illogical that simply adding an additional terrestrial access allocation to 3500 MHz licences would require a return of spectrum. Additionally, as identified in the LYA report and we highlight in our 3500 MHz comments, regulators in other jurisdictions, such as the U.K. and Spain, are permitting incumbent 3500 MHz licensees to retain all of their spectrum and implement 5G in the band.41 If the Canadian AWS-4 band policy and international 3500 MHz transition policies that required the return of no spectrum to the national regulator are not the appropriate precedents, then clearly the Canadian 2500 MHz decision that saw licensees
37 Telus Comments, para 44. 38 Note: SMR 800 MHz spectrum is already standardized by 3GPP as band 27 for 4G LTE and has been deployed in the U.S., resulting in a robust device and infrastructure ecosystem. 39 Telus, Spectrum Outlook Consultation Comments, para 31 & 156‐166; 40 Bell Comments, para 61. 41 LYA Report, p. 19.
Page 13 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
return one-third of their fixed wireless licences for new flexible use licences is the appropriate one.
30. As we highlight in our initial comments, the Department previously determined that all existing 3500 MHz licensees that are in compliance with all existing licence conditions will be eligible for a new spectrum licence under the future 3500 MHz flexible use policy.42 The Department could, and should, simply renew all 3500 MHz licences and increase the amount of available spectrum for exclusively licensed flexible use to support additional competition in the band. As Bell states:
None of the conditions that would prevent a renewal for a further ten-year term are present in the current case. No breaches of licence have occurred, adding a flexible mobile allocation is not a profound change to the nature of this band, and the policy need to enable 5G deployments can be accomplished more efficiently by leaving the spectrum in the hands of the current licence holders.43
31. At a minimum, the Department should follow the precedent established in the introduction of flexible use in the 2500 MHz Broadband Radio Service Band. ISED, then Industry Canada, set a precedent by requiring a one-third return of spectrum to the Department as part of the adoption of a new band plan.44 If the Department immediately expands the 3500 MHz band to 300 MHz for exclusive flexible use licensing, this will provide a minimum of 180 MHz to be available for the future 3500 MHz auction process in each service area. That means the amount of spectrum available in the auction process for each service area is at least 150% of that retained by incumbent licensees. This ensures all of the Department’s goals for the band including the continuation of existing services, competition in the Canadian marketplace and availability of new 5G services for Canadians. Allowing incumbent licensees the ability to exchange their current 3500 MHz FWA spectrum licences for flexible use licences and retaining two-thirds of their spectrum in each service area, rounded to the nearest whole block, is the minimal option ISED should take.
32. To require a greater forced return of spectrum would be unprecedented, arbitrary, unfair, and unjustified to current licensees and operators for the simple addition of a related allocation to current licences. Such actions could discourage future investment or limit innovation in the wireless industry, as licensees would always be concerned their spectrum licences could be appropriated by Government at any
42 Industry Canada, Decisions Regarding Policy Changes in the 3500 MHz Band (3475‐3650 MHz) and a New Licensing Process (DGSO‐007‐14), December 2014, para. 39 (see also Decision 6). 43 Bell Comments, para 59. 44 Industry Canada, Decisions on the Transition to Broadband Radio Service (BRS) in the Band 2500–2690 MHz and Consultation on Changes Related to the Band Plan; https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt‐gst.nsf/eng/sf09882.html.
Page 14 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
time simply because the demand for that spectrum had increased.45 This is not just the view of large providers but also small ones, as ABC Communications states that the Department will discourage investment in regional telecom infrastructure from new competitors and small companies through involuntary spectrum reductions.46 Discouraging investment is the exact opposite policy action the Department should be doing at any time but most especially as network operators are preparing to deploy the next generation of connectivity services to Canadians.
33. With an expanded band plan that includes a total of 300 MHz for initial flexible use licences, the optimal option is that the Department should allow existing 3500 MHz licensees to retain all of their spectrum. This would still provide a minimum of 120 MHz of spectrum in every service area to facilitate additional competition in the Canadian wireless marketplace, while also providing for the continuation of existing services and the availability of new 5G services for all Canadians. Retaining all of their spectrum would be justified, given the substantial investments that have been made in this band by incumbent 3500 MHz FWA licensees, despite the lack of a vibrant ecosystem, and in the face of the significant risk and ongoing uncertainty surrounding the technology, future band plan, and future policy for the band as well as the Department’s recent AWS-4 policy.
34. In regards to the options presented in the Consultation, Rogers, along with Shaw, Eastlink, SaskTel, and PIAC view Option 1 as the superior.47 Should ISED decide to adopt either of the Department’s proposed options, Rogers and Bell should each be considered licensee to half the spectrum held by Inukshuk and then have option’s formula applied. As Bell notes, to do otherwise would be punitive to Rogers and Bell and disregard the Department’s past treatment of Inukshuk, as supported by the legal opinion from Goodmans LLP.48
35. However, both options remain sub-optimal for ensuring 5G facilities-based competition between incumbent and new 3500 MHz licensees and does not respect the ongoing investments current licensees have made and the fact that they have fully satisfied their licence conditions. As the Rural Municipalities of Alberta comments, “Both options 1 and 2 appear to offer significant risks for some or all incumbent FWA providers, including a requirement for small ISPs to invest in
45 Bell Comments, para 37. 46 ABC Communications Comments, para 40. 47 Shaw Comments, par 52‐54; Eastlink Comments, para 10; SaskTel Comments, para 61; PIAC Comments, para 18. 48 Bell Comments, para 44‐51.
Page 15 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
‘equipment upgrades’ in order to maintain current service levels (option 1), and a potentially significant loss of spectrum for large FWA providers (option 2).”49
36. In light of the above, the Department should instead allow FWA incumbents to retain a minimum of two-thirds of their current holdings. Combined with the Department immediately expanding the 3500 MHz band to 300 MHz for exclusive flexible use licensing, this would still provide a minimum of 180 MHz to be available for the future 3500 MHz auction process in each service area.
Q6: ISED is seeking comments on alternative options for licensees to return spectrum to the Department to make available for a future licensing process. Respondents are asked to provide a rationale for any alternative proposals, including how they would meet ISED's policy objectives as stated in section 3.
37. As highlighted above, requiring existing licensees to return 3500 MHz spectrum above one-third is poor public policy and without precedent. As Bell states, 3500 MHz licensees fairly acquired their spectrum and deployed it to the best of their abilities given challenges of ecosystem. They further state:
Now that the technology has developed sufficiently to introduce viable wireless services into the market, it would be poor public policy for the Government to seize the spectrum and auction it off. Presumably, existing licensees would be required to repurchase spectrum in the auction; effectively paying for the same spectrum twice.50
38. As we have previously documented, Canada already has some of the highest spectrum costs in the world, costs that are ultimately borne by consumers and negatively impact affordability for all Canadian mobile subscribers and generally hurt competition in the mobile industry. Further, requiring current licensees to return significant amounts of spectrum in order to repurchase it will reduce the capital available for investment in network infrastructure, for both large and small facilities- based operators, at the dawn of the 5G era.
39. Rogers has reviewed all the alternative proposals of other parties and finds none of them superior or fairer to all incumbent 3500 MHz licensees than the return of one- third of fixed wireless licences in exchange for flexible use licences. Such action, combined with immediately expanding the available spectrum for exclusively
49 Rural Municipalities of Alberta Comments, pg 1. 50 Bell Comments, para 56
Page 16 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
licensed flexible use, would ensure that all of the Department’s policy objectives of innovation and investment in the latest 5G technologies, facilities-based competition amongst multiple providers, and the timely deployment of services across the country would all be met. It would also be consistent with the successful precedent approach taken by ISED for the 2500 MHz spectrum band, where the Department permitted eligible incumbent licensees in that band to apply for new flexible use licences for approximately two-thirds of their 2500 MHz spectrum holdings, and the remaining one-third of their holdings was returned to the Department and re-licensed using a spectrum auction.51
40. The Department should strongly reject all the transparently self-serving alternative proposals, such as those by former 3500 MHz licensees that refused to invest at all while they held FWA licences, profited from the sale of their 3500 MHz FWA spectrum to a competitor, and are now insisting ISED recall the majority of spectrum. For instance, Telus proposes an alternative option that they acknowledge specifically targets Inukshuk’s holdings.52 Telus provides no satisfactory justification for the Department creating a policy that targets a single licensee’s holdings, especially as they acknowledge throughout their submission that Inukshuk has achieved and fully maintains its conditions of licence. In fact, numerous commenters implicitly agree that Inukshuk has fully met its conditions of licence. For clarity, Rogers believes that no incumbent 3500 MHz licensee should be subjected to additional, arbitrary, after-the-fact requirements, especially when all conditions of licence have been fulfilled.
41. SaskTel also takes a similarly inconsistent and self-serving approach to dealing with the 3500 MHz band by preferring a return of two-thirds of spectrum holdings. They suggest should the Department consider alternative options, “SaskTel urges the Department to ensure that no incumbent licence holder receives an unfair advantage or a windfall of flexible use licenses, and that all parties are treated equally and fairly.”53 This stands in contrast to SaskTel’s acceptance of a one-third return in the 2500 MHz conversion, even while SaskTel still possesses the deepest spectrum portfolio of current mobile bands in all of Saskatchewan. Rogers believes the way to treat all parities equally and fairly is to treat 3500 MHz incumbent licensees like SaskTel was treated in the 2500 MHz transition, and require a return of one-third of their current spectrum holdings.
51 See Industry Canada, Policy Provisions for the Band 2500‐2690 MHz to Facilitate Future Mobile Service (DGTP‐ 002‐06), March 2006, p. 3; and Industry Canada, Consultation on Transition to Broadband Radio Service (BRS) in the Band 2500‐2690 MHz (DGRB‐005‐09), March 2009, p. 3. 52 Telus Comments, para 59. 53 SaskTel Comments, para 64.
Page 17 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
42. Xplornet proposes another alternative option that is designed in such a way that protects their own holdings while requiring a large sacrifice of spectrum from a single provider.54 Specifically, it requires Inukshuk to return approximately 50% of its spectrum on a MHzPops basis while requiring Xplornet themselves to return less than 5% of their holdings on a MHzPops basis. The outcome of Xplornet’s alternative is similar to that of Telus’ in that it effectively recommends that the Department target a single licensee’s spectrum holdings, a licensee that has fully met all its conditions of licence the same as (presumably) Xplornet has.
43. However, the primary criteria of Xplornet’s two-step proposal – 1) a 100 MHz cap per Tier 4 licence area; and, 2) a MHzPops concentration cap of 40% across the band – would provide a better alternative to incumbent licensees transitioning from 3500 MHz FWA licences to flexible use ones than the Department’s proposals. It allows network operators that have made significant investments deploying to retain more of their 3500 MHz in order to continue serving current customers and deploy next generation technologies to benefit all Canadians, urban and rural alike.
44. Only the primary criteria meets this test though and the Department should not accept the additional subcriteria that Xplornet proposes. The 40% MHzPops cap should apply to the new, expanded 200 MHz band, not the current 175 MHz band. In addition, incumbent licensees should have the flexibility to prioritize which licences they keep to meet the 40% MHzPops concentration cap based on their own customers and their own current deployment coverage and future network plans. Accepting the primary criteria of Xplornet’s two-step alternative with a 200 MHz flexible use band would still provide at least 25-100 MHz in every Tier 4 for competitive licensing, with the amount of spectrum available in most major markets at or near the high end of the range. If the Department expands the band to 300 MHz, this would provide at least 125-200 MHz for competitive licensing in each Tier 4 service area.
45. For clarity, should the Department accept Xplornet’s proposal, it should only accept the primary criteria of two-steps: a 100 MHz cap per Tier 4 licence area; and, a MHzPops concentration cap of 40% across the expanded 200 MHz of ISED’s proposed 3500 MHz band. The Department should not accept applying the 40% MHzPops concentration cap to the old 175 MHz FWA band nor Xplornet’s licence area return prioritization scheme.
46. Although Xplornet’s proposal is better than the Department’s proposals at accomplishing all the policy objectives for the 3500 MHz band, it is still not as good
54 Xplornet Comments, pg 21‐22.
Page 18 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
as a one-third return. A one-third return of spectrum is a fair policy, set on precedent, and will achieve the Department’s goals. Further, a one-third return combined with increasing the band to 300 MHz would mean a minimum of 180 MHz available for competitive licensing in every licence area, which will further competition and benefit all Canadians. The Department should strongly reject any alternative proposal from any 3500 MHz FWA licensee, including rural-focused operators, that is designed to allow themselves to retain all of their own spectrum but require the return from others and instead apply an approach that treats all licensees equally so long as they have fully met their conditions of licence.
47. The Department should also reject any proposals to mandate spectrum sharing or introduce dynamic access to exclusively licensed spectrum, or appropriate primary licences.55 As ISED is well aware, Rogers has entered voluntarily into multiple agreements subordinating spectrum to small regional and community-based carriers serving rural and remote areas over the years, including community-based carriers serving remote Indigenous communities. These agreements have resulted in the provision of wireless services using Rogers' licensed spectrum in communities that could not otherwise have been economically served, including 3500 MHz spectrum held through Inukshuk. Rogers remains open to entering into similar arrangements with our spectrum licences to extend coverage further. However, these negotiations should remain on a voluntary basis to ensure that the primary licensees' deployed wireless networks and future deployment plans are not negatively impacted to the detriment of current and future wireless consumers.
48. In summary, if the Department increases the amount of spectrum immediately available for exclusive licensing to 300 MHz, this will result in a minimum of 180 MHz of spectrum being available for competitive licensing in each service area. The amount of spectrum available through competitive licensing would be 150% the amount that incumbent licensees would receive in new flexible use licences. A return of one-third of spectrum by incumbent FWA licensees ensures that all of the Department’s policy objectives of innovation and investment in the latest 5G technologies, facilities-based competition amongst multiple providers, and the timely deployment of services across the country would all be met. A one-third return of FWA spectrum is wholly justified given the substantial investments that have been made in this band by incumbent licensees, despite the lack of a vibrant ecosystem, and in the face of the significant risk and ongoing uncertainty surrounding the technology, future band plan, and future policy for the band.
55 CCI Comments, pg 5; Enbridge Comments, pg 2; Commsult Engineering, pg 2; Planetworks Consulting Comments, pg 3; EORN Comments, para 32; CanWISP Comments, para 30.
Page 19 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
Q7: ISED is seeking comments on a revised band plan using unpaired blocks of 10 MHz in the frequency range of 3450–3650 MHz.
49. There is near unanimous support for the Department’s proposal to use 10 MHz unpaired blocks in the 3450-3650 MHz range, with many commenters taking a similar position as Rogers and specifically noting their support is contingent on the ability to aggregate into wider bandwidths, ideally up to 100 MHz.56 Telus also requests that ISED guarantee contiguity of licences, as 10 MHz blocks provides suitable flexibility for licensees to acquire sufficient spectrum according to their business needs.57 Rogers strongly agrees with this position and calls for the Department to include a spectrum contiguity provision in its new 3500 MHz policy and a condition of licence for the new 3500 MHz and 3800 MHz flexible use licences, requiring spectrum block exchanges whenever the band is extended in order to maximize contiguity. This view is also supported by the LYA Report, which explains, a key characteristic of 5G technology is the need for large channels, such as 50 MHz, 100 MHz, or 200 MHz, or more, to leverage its full benefits.58
50. Although Xplornet supports 10 MHz blocks if the Department’s intent is to eventually align with Band n77 (3300-4200 MHz), they believe 50 MHz or 100 MHz blocks would be more appropriate. Regardless, they believe ISED should establish an immediate band plan for the range 3400-3800 MHz.59 Rogers supports the Department providing clear guidance on both future spectrum releases for extending the band for exclusive flexible use licensing as well as immediately increasing the spectrum available to at least 300 MHz. We are also supportive if the Department is able to quickly reallocate up to 3800 MHz for the initial competitive licensing process, along with contiguity provisions proposed by Rogers. Of those not explicitly supporting the Department’s proposal of 10 MHz blocks, CCI believes they should be at least 20 MHz while Ericsson does not specify a block size but encourages as large a channel bandwidth as possible to allow for aggregation up to 100 MHz.60
56 Bell Comments, para 70; Telus Comments, para 65; Shaw Comments, para 56; Quebecor Comments, para 37; Cogeco Comments, para 50; SaskTel Comments, para 65; Eastlink Comments, para 14; ABC Communications, para 46; Comcentric Comments, pg 3; Ecotel Comments, para 22; Seaside Wireless, pg 5; Sogetel Comments, para 29; Nokia Comments, pg 9; SSi Micro Comments, para 24; CanWISP Comments, para 35; BCBA Comments, para 31. 57 Telus Comments, para 68. 58 LYA Report, p. 8. 59 Xplornet Comments, pg 25‐26. 60 CCI Comments, pg 5; Ericsson Comments, pg 10.
Page 20 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
51. Rogers continues to support ISED’s proposal to use unpaired blocks of 10 MHz in the 3500 MHz and 3800 MHz bands, assuming the auction software will automatically create contiguity and the Department facilitates contiguity with flexible use licences issued to incumbent 3500 MHz FWA licensees. In addition, the Department should ensure that all relevant technical documents, including the Standard Radio System Plan (SRSP) and Radio Standards Specifications (RSS) are developed in such a way that will not impose an efficiency penalty as facilities- based operators seek to deploy bandwidths of up to 100 MHz to deliver all the benefits of 5G services to Canadians.
Q8: ISED is seeking comments on whether any additional measures should be taken to limit potential interference issues with the proposed TDD band plan.
52. Based on our experience operating in the 3500 MHz band, Rogers continues to believe that mitigation measures will be required to prevent interference issues with the proposed TDD band plan. A majority of comments support voluntary coordination efforts, with the Department only getting involved in the case that interference cannot be resolved between operators.61 However, a couple of commenters indicate they want to see ISED impose either specific methods or at least create a reference level that would necessitate coordination.62 Rogers believes that voluntary coordination is preferable, as it gives operators more flexibility based on the issues that may arise in a specific geographic area or between network technologies, backstopped by assistance from the Department only if necessary.
53. The use of synchronization as an interference prevention technique was commonly recommended in the responses and Rogers expects that it will be required in most markets in Canada, and that operators will voluntarily coordinate.63 Telus also supports synchronization and believes it should be addressed in an upcoming technical consultation on the band.64 There is very little support for guard bands, especially the idea of mandatory guard bands that could result in a penalty to spectrum efficiency. In our comments, Rogers raises the issue of frequency co-
61 Bell Comments, para 71; Cogeco Comments, para 51; SaskTel Comments, para 66; Seaside Communications, pg 5; Ericsson Comments, pg 10; Nokia Comments, pg 9‐10; BCBA Comments, para 33. 62 CanWISP Comments, para 36; Ecotel Comments, para 25‐26. 63 Bell Comments, para 71; Cogeco Comments, para 51; 64 Telus Comments, para 75.
Page 21 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
ordination as a key factor in limiting interference issues and we note that Xplornet also calls for the Department to consult on and modify SRSP 303.4.65
54. On the matter of additional measures to mitigate any potential interference, Comcentric notes its equipment is not compatible with LTE standards, while CCI wants the Department to mandate the use of 3GPP-based protocols in the 3500 MHz and 3800 MHz bands.66 Rogers believes the Department should retain its traditional technology-neutral position and not mandate licensees to use any specific technology. However, most incumbent 3500 MHz licensees are already moving towards adopting LTE in the band, or will adopt 5G in the future, due to market forces, and we expect this trend to continue.
55. ABC Communications believes there is a risk of potential interference during the transition phase and the Department should provide support in the form of both additional (temporary) spectrum and funding for affected service providers.67 Rogers is supportive of the Department using auction proceeds to assist with the transition and taking measures, where spectrum is available to the Department, or through voluntary agreement between licensees, that will facilitate a quick and orderly repacking of the 3500 MHz and 3800 MHz bands to provide the wide bandwidths necessary to take full advantage of 5G connectivity benefits.
Q9: ISED is seeking comments on the proposal to align the timing of the issuance of flexible use licences to incumbents with the issuance of licences to those who acquire 3500 MHz flexible use licences in a future licensing process.
56. Overall, there is general support for the Department’s proposal to align the timing of the issuance of flexible use licences to incumbents with the issuance of licences to those who acquire 3500 MHz flexible use licences in a future licensing process.68 Rogers continues to support this proposal, as it will assist the Department in making at least 300 MHz immediately available for exclusively licensed flexible use and thus increase the immediate benefit of 5G in the 3500 MHz and 3800 MHz bands for all Canadian consumers and businesses.
65 Xplornet Comments pg 26. 66 Comcentric Comments, pg 3; CCI Comments, pg 6. 67 ABC Communications, para 50‐51. 68 Bell Comments, para 75; Telus Comments, para 76; Eastlink Comments, para 15; SaskTel Comments, para 69; Comcentric Comments, pg 3; Ecotel Comments, para 28; Seaside Wireless, pg 6; SSi Micro Comments, para 28; PIAC Comments, para 20; CanWISP Comments, para 37; BCBA Comments para 34.
Page 22 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
57. Shaw, similar to the 600 MHz policy consultation, seems to be suggesting they are unable to conduct sufficient network planning or deployment without actually possessing licences, and so is requesting a 6-month delay for the issuance of new flexible use licences to incumbent licensees to assist Shaw.69 However, pre- commercial band n78 equipment is already available and commercial equipment is expected from multiple vendors within the next year. Indeed, Shaw has already publically announced that they have conducted 5G tests in the 3500 MHz band so it is somewhat perplexing as to what are their true network planning challenges. Quebecor makes similar arguments, though they want a 12-month delay.70 The Department should reject all such measures. Operators like Rogers are investing today to make their networks 5G ready and Canadian wireless consumers should not be penalized in their ability to access next generation services because of Shaw and Quebecor’s limited commitment to begin 5G network planning today.
58. Cogeco supports the Department’s proposal but also suggests that new licensees are penalized by not being be able to test equipment prior to receiving a licence.71 However, Cogeco’s concerns of testing of mobile or fixed wireless 5G equipment are completely invalid, as demonstrated above by Shaw’s 5G tests without being an incumbent 3500 MHz FWA licensee. Rogers commends the Department on their efforts to assist with Canada’s innovation agenda by providing access to spectrum for such purposes, along with outlining the process through the Developmental Licence Playbook.72
59. At the other end of the spectrum, Xplornet does not support delaying the issuance of flexible use licences to incumbents on the basis that they view it as “counter- productive to impose artificial handcuffs” on parties that prevent them from innovating and deploying flexible use before other parties.73 Although Rogers agrees that delaying the issuance of flexible licenses until the completion of a 3500 MHz auction penalizes incumbents, like Rogers and Xplornet, that have continued to invest in their spectrum holdings despite the lack of a vibrant ecosystem in the current band plan and in the face of the significant risk and ongoing uncertainty surrounding the band, we still believe the advantages of the proposed timing alignment outweigh the harms in this case.
60. As we note in our comments, the delay provides enough time for the Department to open the 3400-3450 MHz range to current WBS licensees and begin transitioning
69 Shaw Comments, para 59‐60. 70 Quebecor Comments, para 46. 71 Cogeco Comments, para 52‐53. 72 ISED, Developmental Licence Playbook; https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt‐gst.nsf/eng/sf11373.html. 73 Xplornet Comments, pg 26.
Page 23 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
them out of the 3650-3700 MHz band. It allows time for a repack of any satellite users in 3700-3750 MHz, or potentially up to 3800 MHz as suggested by numerous commenters, to higher in the C-band or into another band allocated for satellite services. And, finally, it will assist smaller incumbent 3500 MHz licensees with a smoother transition between the current fixed FWA band plan and the new flexible use one. The timeframe the Department has proposed will thus enable ISED to open at least 300 MHz for exclusive licensing and increase the immediate benefit of 5G in the 3500 MHz and 3800 MHz bands for all Canadian consumers and businesses.
Q10: ISED is seeking preliminary comments on the importance of price discovery in a licensing process for flexible use licences in the 3500 MHz band.
61. There was enormous support for the use of a price discovery mechanism in a licensing process for flexible use licences in the 3500 MHz band, including national and regional carriers, as well as small rural providers.74 After reviewing the comments, Rogers still views an auction format that includes a price discovery mechanism as necessary for bidders to interpret competitive dynamics and refine valuations in each service area, and promote a level playing field across participants.
62. Without the use of a price discovery mechanism, and especially without a condition of licence to ensure contiguity with current holdings and any spectrum gained in future auctions in the band, there is a high risk that facilities-based operators will be unable to secure the contiguous holdings and wide bandwidths that truly maximize the benefits of 5G. As Bell states:
While inefficient allocations can be corrected after the auction through transactions in the secondary market, these transactions create significant resource costs to both the licence holders and the Department. … Therefore, price discovery is required to support the efficient allocation of flexible use licences in the 3500 MHz band and we recommend that the Department incorporate it into the licensing process.75
74 Telus Comments, para 80; Shaw Comments, para 61; Quebecor Comments, para 48; Cogeco Comments, para 55; Xplornet Comments, pg 27; SaskTel Comments, para 73; ABC Communications, para 59; CCI Comments, pg 6; Ecotel Comments, para 31; PIAC Comments, para 24; 75 Bell Comments, para 74.
Page 24 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
63. Rogers agrees with Bell and we additionally note that some licensees may be unwilling to enter into secondary market transactions in order to deprive their competitors of contiguous holdings and wider bandwidths.
64. There is some variation in preference of auction formats in the comments, with some saying it is too early to decide. There is also some support for simpler auction processes to allow for greater rural participation or their guaranteed access to spectrum.76 Rogers highlights that we continue to support that 50 MHz of spectrum should be available in the 3400-3450 MHz band on a light licensing basis, which would guarantee rural access. We also believe the Department should ensure any future auction has an appropriate pricing mechanism that does not drive prices above the level needed to achieve efficient allocation of the spectrum. Auctions that create artificial scarcity through the use of set-asides or emphasize raising revenue above a fair and reasonable market price will not achieve ISED’s goals to foster an advanced and competitive communications system, with consumers ultimately paying higher prices.
Q11: ISED is seeking comments on the proposed protection and notification provisions for incumbent licensees as outlined below.
65. There is general support for the Department’s proposed protection and notification provisions for incumbent licensees;77 although, some suggest small variations to population sizes (both increasing and decreasing) for protection or timelines.78
66. Telus supports 3 years protection for “truly rural” areas, though SaskTel argues that this is long, especially as incumbents should already be aware as of the consultation publication date – if not the Minister’s June 2018 Canadian Telecom Summit announcement – that they will be required to transition out of the band.79 Shaw recommends that protection and notification provisions for incumbent licensees apply only in those service areas where there is a sufficient number of end users to justify a need for protection.80 Comcentric wants a 7 year minimum protection period for an increased number of rural Tier 4 areas, whereas Ecotel
76 EORN Comments, para 36; CanWISP Comments, para 40; BCBA Comments, para 38; Comcentric Comments, pg 3; Seaside Wireless Comments, pg 6 77 Bell Comments, para 75; SSi Micro Comments, para 35; PIAC Comments, para 30; CBC Comments, pg 6. 78 Quebecor Comments, para 63; Cogeco Comments, para 56; Eastlink Comments, para 16‐17. 79 Telus Comments, para 97; SaskTel Comments, para 92‐93; 80 Shaw Comments, para 67.
Page 25 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
believes that protection should be the same length of time for all licensing areas.81 In reviewing these conflicting proposals and their supporting claims, Rogers believes ISED’s current proposals maintain the right balance between a sufficient protection and notification period for rural fixed wireless incumbents and the ability of future licensees to deploy 5G technologies, and are the right policy going forward.
67. A number of rural fixed wireless operators state that the 10 km buffer zone extends too far outside of urban centres and should be eliminated or reduced, along with longer protection periods for their deployments outside of major urban centres.82 CanWISP goes even further and suggest that instead of a buffer zone, the Department could require new licensees provide technical justification for the displacement they seek.83 The Department should reject all these arguments. As Rogers states in our comments, we have seen numerous cases of interference at distances over 40 km, some as much as 80 km.84 A 10 km buffer provides both clarity for incumbent licensees and will generally ensure sufficient protection for future mobile deployments near urban centres
68. However, we still believe that nothing should preclude voluntarily negotiated business arrangements that could result in incumbent licensees in a particular service area transitioning faster to accommodate the new flexible use licensee deploying sooner, whether in rural and remote service areas or in a buffer zone.
Q12: ISED is seeking comments on alternative transition plans, or variations to the times proposed. Respondents are asked to provide a rationale for any alternative proposals.
69. There are few major alternatives or variations to the timelines that the Department has proposed. Rogers fully endorses Bell’s recommendation that ISED facilitate discussions between licence holders as part of the 3500 MHz transition process similar to the 2500 MHz Stakeholder Proposal Development process, to develop a plan to align the spectrum they would retain following transition, as well timing of
81 Comcentric Comments, pg 4; Ecotel Comments, para 32. 82 Xplornet Comments, pg 28; ABC Communications, para 65‐67; CCI Comments, pg 7; CCSA Comments, para 10; CanWISP Comments, para 49; BCBA Comments, para 50. 83 CanWISP Comments, para 52. 84 Rogers Comments, para 85.
Page 26 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
transition and any new technical parameters.85 We agree that these discussions are particularly important given the need for large amounts of contiguous spectrum to maximize benefits of 5G, and again strongly recommend the Department include a spectrum contiguity provision in its 3500 MHz policy along with a condition of licence for the new 3500 MHz and 3800 MHz flexible use licences, requiring spectrum block exchanges whenever the band is extended.
70. The BCBA suggests that ISED make additional spectrum available adjacent to the existing WBS band (i.e. 3700-3750 MHz) to rural service providers prior to the 3500 MHz auctions, stating this will mitigate service disruptions caused by network migrations.86 Rogers supports, where possible, providing temporary access to the 3700-3750 MHz spectrum to speed the transition of any incumbent 3500 MHz service provider prior to the auction process, and including this spectrum in the auction to allow for exclusively licensed flexible use in the entire 3450-3750 MHz band. Increasing the amount of spectrum available for exclusively licensed flexible use to a minimum of 300 MHz will benefit all Canadians with advanced connectivity services.
71. The Department should reject Cogeco’s recommendation that ISED mandate incumbents to notify their facilities-based competitors in the same service area of 5G deployment plans and waive protection periods for incumbents.87 Likewise, ISED should reject Comcentric’s proposal to include a “default one-year time period” ahead of any notification or protection periods to negotiate.88 While Rogers continues to be fully supportive of voluntary business arrangements licensees can agree on to facilitate a more rapid and orderly transition to the new band plan, these agreements should be undertaken voluntarily and within the notification and protection timelines proposed by the Department.
Q13: ISED is seeking comments on whether the fixed and mobile equipment for LTE and 5G technologies will be able to operate with intermittent interference from radars, including cross-border interference, within the 3450–3650 MHz band and in adjacent bands.
85 Bell Comments, para 76. 86 BCBA Comments, para 55; ABC Communications, para 74. 87 Cogeco Comments, para 61; 88 Comcentric Comments, pg 4.
Page 27 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
72. Rogers remains confident that fixed and mobile equipment using 4G LTE and 5G NR technologies will be able to operate with intermittent interference from the sources identified within the 3450-3650 MHz and adjacent bands, with the majority of submissions agreeing on this view.89
73. While most commenters are indeed confident that there will be no cross border issues, a few also state their support for ISED working with the FCC on an agreement to minimize/mitigate any potential cross-border interference issues.90 Others believe there will be limited impacts but want more technical studies conducted to ensure there will be no harmful interference.91 As Rogers shares in our comments, to date most of the current 5G testing at 3500 MHz in Canada has taken place below 3475 MHz and we remain unaware of any interference issues from radiolocation. In addition, in the many years of operating the Inukshuk network in the 3500 MHz band, including down to 3475 MHz, we have never observed interference from radiolocation services, including any cross-border interference.92 That said, we are supportive of any proactive international coordination efforts or additional technical studies the Department undertakes to ensure Canadian facilities-based operators are able to deploy in an interference- free environment.
74. Some smaller providers suggest that some spectrum licences could be valued less or potentially result in FCFS licensing if there is any impact on licences due to potential interference.93 Rogers believes the 3500 MHz spectrum will be in great demand due to its role as a global pioneer 5G band and thus auctioning is the appropriate licensing mechanism for newly available spectrum. However, this demonstrates why a price discovery mechanism is so important, so facilities-based operators can factor any potential interference concerns in a particular service area into their valuations.
Q14: ISED is seeking preliminary comments on how to optimize the use of the 3650–3700 MHz band, including the potential use of a database access model.
89 Bell Comments, para 78; Comcentric Comments, pg 4; CCI Comments, pg 8; Seaside Wireless Comments, pg 7; Nokia Comments, pg 10; CanWISP Comments, para 56. 90 Telus Comments, para 106; Quebecor Comments, para 70; Xplornet Comments, pg 29; Ericsson Comments, pg 11; EORN Comments, para 46. 91 Shaw Comments, para 69; SaskTel Comments, para 98; Ecotel Comments, para 34; Huawei Comments, pg 4; 92 Rogers Comments, para 114. 93 BCBA Comments, para 56; ABC Communications Comments, para 77; Seaside Wireless Comments, pg 7.
Page 28 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
75. Reviewing the consultation comments, it is clear that there is very limited support for the use of a database access or dynamic access model.94 SaskTel argues that a database model not is appropriate for the 3650-3700 MHz band, either now or in future.95 They believe that a database access model will only complicate licensing and installation processes and raise equipment costs, meaning higher operating and infrastructure costs for WBS operators (and thus higher prices for end consumers). Further, in SaskTel’s view, a database model will not even solve potential interference issues completely. The BCBA also recommends against adopting a database system to minimize potential interference, as they see it as reducing operator certainty.96 Rogers agrees with these general conclusions that a database model simply increases costs for no material benefit.
76. Shaw, Quebecor, and Ericsson generally support making 3650-3700 MHz mobile primary, especially in urban areas, whereas Telesat is supportive of “optimizing” 3650-3700 MHz but has concerns about the impacts of a database model on potential interference.97 Rogers remains supportive of making the entire 3300-4200 MHz band terrestrial flexible use in the long term, with an immediate increase to 300 MHz for exclusively licensed flexible use.
77. In addition to general lack of support for a database model and some general support for making 3650-3700 MHz mobile primary, there are more specific alternative proposals on how to optimize use of the band. Telus proposes two options as part of a plan to make 400+ MHz of contiguous spectrum available in the 3500 MHz band, either simply displacing WBS users from core urban areas or, instead, relocating to another band. In the case of the latter, Telus suggests a longer transition time could apply for rural and remote operators.98 EORN also appears to support the 3650-3700 MHz band being reallocated provided incumbent operators have access to alternative spectrum.99 Xplornet, similar to Rogers, supports moving current licensees down to 3400-3450 MHz in order increase the amount of contiguous blocks available in the 3500 MHz band.100
78. In addition, we note that France announced a 5G roadmap on July 16, 2018, which includes a plan to reallocate frequencies assigned to other uses in the 3400-3800
94 Bell Mobility Comments, para 79; Eastlink Comments, pg 23; ABC Communications Comments, para 82; Ecotel Comments, para 35; 95 SaskTel Comments, para 105. 96 BCBA Comments, para 64. 97 Shaw Comments, para 70; Quebecor Comments, para 71; Ericsson Comments, pg 12; Telesat Comments, para 7‐ 10. 98 Telus Comments, para 109‐111. 99 EORN Comments, para 47. 100 Xplornet Comments, pg 29
Page 29 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
MHz bad, including legacy WiMax fixed wireless systems and government services, in order to fully release the entire 400 MHz for 5G.101
79. Rogers continues to support moving current WBS users as the best policy outcome for incumbent licensees and expanding the 3500 MHz and 3800 MHz bands for terrestrial exclusively licensed flexible use. This will help network operators achieve wide bandwidths of 100 MHz or more that will allow them to truly deliver on the promise of 5G in the 3500 MHz band. In our comments, we note that such a move should be possible as many WBS users have been deploying 4G LTE equipment in the band. ABC Communications supports this view, stating “Most modern equipment for licensed bands, procured during the last 2 years or so, is frequency agile in the 3400-3700 MHz range.”102 3400-3450 MHz is the ideal home for current WBS licensees and will increase the amount of contiguous 3500 MHz spectrum for future 5G deployments.
80. Cogeco and CanWISP are among the few that support dynamic access while Comcentric appears to support dynamic access only in the case that incumbents are grandfathered as priority users.103 Nokia notes that the FCC decided to optimize the 3650-3700 MHz band as part of their CBRS database approach and suggest that ISED could consider it in Canada.104 However, as Telus states,105 it is unlikely that Band 48 – the U.S. CBRS band – will ever evolve from 4G LTE to 5G NR due to the limited size of bandwidth channels available to U.S. carriers. In addition, the database access model chosen by the U.S. was the result of incumbent military and federal users that could not be displaced. The spectrum environment in the 3500 MHz band is completely different in the U.S. and Canada and does not warrant the introduction of additional complexity and uncertainty of a database access model.
81. Further, Rogers continues to view it as illogical and bad policy to require WBS licensees to invest in new equipment that will negatively impact 5G deployments and services to all Canadians when the same investments could allow WBS incumbents to move to the bottom of the band (3400-3450 MHz) to provide the same service to their customers and improve the ability of 5G network operators to provide service to the majority of Canadians. No evidence has been offered to
101 ARCEP, 5G Work Programme; https://www.arcep.fr/fileadmin/reprise/dossiers/programme‐ 5G/Programme_de_travail_5G‐English_version.pdf. 102 ABC Communications Comments, para 48. 103 Cogeco Comments, para 64; CanWISP Comments, para 59; Comcentric Comments, pg 5; Seaside Wireless Comments, pg 8. 104 Nokia Comments, pg 11. 105 Telus Comments, para 108.
Page 30 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
suggest otherwise and there exists support across a range of stakeholders for moving WBS incumbents.
82. Leaving WBS users in the middle of the 3500 and 3800 MHz band will prevent Canadian consumers and businesses from fully benefiting from the capabilities of 5G in these bands, and impact competition between facilities-based operators. By simply moving current WBS licensees into the 3400-3450 MHz range, this will open an additional 50 MHz of spectrum for exclusively licensed flexible use and provide large, contiguous bandwidths, an optimal outcome for Canadians.
Q15: ISED is seeking comments on the importance of the 3700–4200 MHz band to future FSS operations.
83. Most flexible use proponents agree that, overall, the 3700-4200 MHz band is becoming less important to FSS operations, especially outside of Canada’s Far North and remote areas.106 They cite the Department’s own observations that FSS and BSS services in the C-band are migrating out of the band to higher frequencies to better accommodate higher capacity Internet services and video applications that require larger bandwidths, along with CRTC findings and other vendor and expert reports.
84. Bell proposes the Department should expand the 3500 MHz band to include 3700- 3800 MHz and move existing FSS users above 3800 MHz. As they state, “This transition would free an additional 100 MHz of spectrum for flexible use right away while not placing undue pressure on the available bandwidth for FSS.” They further suggest measures such as exclusion zones, site shielding or band pass filters could be employed to make spectrum above 3800 MHz available sooner in more populated areas with the ultimate goal to “require FSS systems to relocate and be compressed into a smaller portion of the band with the objective of eventually vacating the band altogether.” 107
85. Xplornet concurs with this position based on the evidence in ISED and FCC proceedings that concludes that satellite C-band usage is in decline and can be consolidated in part of the band to make room for flexible use broadband services, eliminating the need for the Department to claw back spectrum in 3500 band from
106 Bell Comments, para 81; Quebecor Comments, para 80‐81; Xplornet Comments, pg 30; Cogeco Comments, para 66; ABC Communications Comments, para 85; CCI Comments, pg 8; Ecotel Comments, para 36; Seaside Wireless Comments, pg 8; Ericsson Comments, pg 13; Huawei Comments, pg 5; Nokia Comments, pg 12. 107 Bell Comments, para 82.
Page 31 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
existing operators.108 Xplornet does acknowledge the importance of FSS backhaul for rural and remote communities but this shows that not all C-band spectrum is required to support FSS, and that “the 3700-3800 MHz portion of the band can be made available for terrestrial use today.”109 We support Bell and Xplornet’s views that up to 100 MHz of the C-band can be immediately repacked and reallocated to flexible use.
86. Satellite proponents suggest, in contrast to the trends documented by ISED, the CRTC, and the FCC, that the C-band is still important for their operations.110 However, most of the specific need and demand for C-band services in these submissions is primarily in northern areas, or remote areas. As the record above shows, flexible use proponents support protecting these areas in at least the short to mid term. In addition, other satellite bands are able to actually provide the connectivity services that Canadians living in these areas want (as well as more urban areas), as opposed to the more limited legacy services that the C-band can deliver.111 As an example, during this consultation Telesat has launched a new high throughput satellite that operates in the Ka and Ku bands to help serve northern Canada and will provide superior connectivity than current offerings provided by legacy C-band satellite services.112
87. Further, some of the same satellite industry proponents claiming demand for C- band services are actively participating in the U.S. process to rapidly clear at least 100 MHz (3700-3800 MHz) for terrestrial use. As a result, it is likely that the same satellites providing coverage over Canada will be required to follow suit and retune higher in the band if they wish to continue providing service into the U.S. This could provide the Department with a path to immediately increasing the amount of exclusively licensed flexible use spectrum to 350 MHz (3450-3800 MHz) in Canada to the benefit of all Canadians.
88. Rogers continues to recommend that for southern parts of Canada, where alternatives to FSS operations in this band are available, ISED should initiate clearing FSS operations as soon as practical from the entire 3700-4200 MHz range, and immediately transition satellite operations out of 3700-3750 MHz or
108 Xplornet Comments, pg 30. 109 Xplornet Comments, pg 31. 110 Shaw Comments, para 71; SaskTel Comments, para 108; Corus Comments, pg 1; Intelsat, Inmarsat, and SES Comments, pg 3; Telesat Comments, para 12; SSi Micro Comments, para 39‐40. 111 Quebecor Comments, para 81. 112 Telesat, Telesat Successfully Launches Telstar 19 VANTAGE Bringing New High Throughput Ku and Ka‐band Capacity across the Americas and Atlantic; https://www.telesat.com/news‐events/telesat‐successfully‐launches‐ telstar‐19‐vantage‐bringing‐new‐high‐throughput‐ku‐and‐ka.
Page 32 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
3700-3800 MHz. For northern and remote parts of Canada, where FSS operations are essential to providing telecommunications services, ISED should not consider any changes to the FSS allocations at this time.
Q16: ISED is seeking comments on whether unlicensed operators in the 3700– 4200 MHz band should be required to submit their technical parameters to ISED to assist in frequency management.
89. A number of commenters support unlicensed operators in the 3700–4200 MHz band being required to submit their technical parameters to ISED to assist in frequency management and/or exclusion zones.113 Several others, including Xplornet, Bell, Ecotel, Seaside Wireless, and Nokia, strongly support the proposal specifically in order to assist terrestrial operators immediately moving into the 3700-3800 MHz band, identifying areas where potential shielding or other tactics are required in the short term and assisting the Department to make an informed decision about reallocation of this spectrum.114 Ericsson notes that while unlicensed operators should submit technical parameters, it is also impractical for licenced users to provide any protection for unlicensed users.115
90. In terms of satellite providers, the CBC believes it is too expensive to submit the data.116 Rogers would accept this position, assuming that unlicensed users remain on a secondary basis and are only able to operate on a no protection, no interference basis outside of urban or suburban areas, or along major transportation corridors or hubs. Some satellite operators do suggest that the Department collect the minimum amount of information necessary to protect the stations but others, like Telesat, downplay the usefulness of any registration.117
91. Rogers continues to support any and all efforts by the Department to transition the entire 3700-4200 MHz band for terrestrial exclusive licensing and clearing segments of the band as quickly as practical. This includes, at a minimum, immediately transitioning all users out of 3700-3750 to expand the initially available
113 Telus Comments, para 114; SaskTel Comments, para 111; BCBA Comments, para 67; Shaw Comments, para 74; ABC Communications Comments, para 86; CCI Comments, pg 9; CanWISP Comments, para 68; Corus Comments, pg 2; SSi Micro Comments, para 44. 114 Xplornet Comments, pg 31; Bell Comments, para 83; Ecotel Comments, para 38; Seaside Wireless Comments, pg 8; Nokia Comments, pg 14. 115 Ericsson Comments, pg 14. 116 CBC Comments, pg 8. 117 Intelsat, Inmarsat, and SES Comments, pg 4; Telesat Comments, para 16.
Page 33 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
exclusively licensed spectrum to 300 MHz. We continue to believe that no unlicensed TV-receive only (TVRO) stations and cable head ends outside of northern Canada that are unlicensed currently should be able to claim protection from other services, and should only operate on a secondary basis until deployment of service by flexible use licensees. However, we would support the requirement to submit technical parameters if it speeds the clearing of the 3700- 4200 MHz band outside of remote areas or in the Far North.
Q17: ISED is seeking comments on which steps Canada should take to optimize the use of the 3700–4200 MHz band in consideration of the current services being provided and the developing technologies that would permit the use of new services in this band (e.g. exclusion zones).
92. There is wide support among flexible use proponents for the Department to optimize the use of the 3700-4200 MHz band in Canada as quickly as feasible for terrestrial facilities-based network operators.118 Similar to Rogers, commenters note the broad international consensus that 5G fixed and mobile services are going to play in the broader 3300-4200 MHz band.
93. Bell states that 5G mobile access to the entire 3700-4200 MHz range should be the Department’s priority long term; however, they highlight that co-existence with FSS using transition timing and techniques such as the use of geographical exclusion zones, site shielding or band pass filters can potentially achieve this objective in short term to free up additional spectrum immediately.119 Xplornet notes that the first 5G band n78 radios will operate up to 3800 MHz, and believes this equipment ecosystem supports the Department making 100 MHz in 3700-3800 MHz immediately available for flexible use 5G services.120 Telus proposes a multi- phased plan for 400+ MHz contiguous spectrum in band while Ericsson highlights that in the U.S. there have been activities since 2017 to vacate a portion of the 3700-4200 band, including by satellite companies.121 Rogers supports any and all efforts to clear as much of the 3700-4200 MHz band as quickly as possible to allow
118 Bell Comments, para 84; Telus Comments, para 115‐123; Shaw Comments, para 75; CCI Comments, pg 9; Xplornet Comments, pg 31; Ericsson Comments, pg 14; Nokia Comments, pg 15. 119 Bell Comments, para 84. 120 Xplornet Comments, pg 30‐31. 121 Ericsson Comments, pg 14.
Page 34 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
as many Canadians as possible to benefit from the wide bandwidth channels delivering 5G.
94. SaskTel does not believe that exclusion zones will work due to the ubiquitous nature of existing C-band earth stations; instead, the Department should focus on spectrum segregation with the only question being how much spectrum incumbent FSS may require for their services.122 Nokia states they have studied interference between 5G systems and satellite systems and believe exclusion zones around earth stations located in dense urban environments would be too limiting. As such, they suggest ISED should look to either relocate as many FSS operations as possible out of the band, substituting services (e.g. fibre) where possible and repacking any remaining FSS operations higher in the band to make the remaining spectrum available for 5G.123 Rogers continues to view exclusion zones as a valid option in the Far North or in remote areas of Canada in the mid-term until satellite providers are able to fully upgrade their offerings to more modern satellite services in other satellite bands. However, nothing should prevent commercial negotiation for the relocation of any grandfathered site to assist in the ability of 5G deployment.
95. Satellite proponents highlight what they view as ongoing demand for incumbent services in the band though they do not provide any convincing evidence. For instance, Intelsat, Inmarsat, and SES argue in their submission that Canada should focus on 3400-3700 MHz for mobile 5G before considering any relocations above 3700 MHz for terrestrial use.124 However, this appears in stark contrast to their involvement in the FCC 3700-4200 MHz proceeding where they have publically announced efforts to “enable wireless operators to access this band for speeding the deployment of next generation 5G services”, including announcing that 100 MHz U.S.-wide “would be cleared within 18 to 36 months of an FCC order”.125 Telesat and SSi Micro discuss ongoing demand for incumbent satellite services in the band126 but their areas of concern seem to primarily be northern and remote communities, areas that flexible use proponents all agree should see longer transition times.
96. Further, Telesat states, “Satellite operators and their customers are implementing new technologies on a continuous basis to optimize use of C-band.”127 As an
122 SaskTel Comments, para 117. 123 Nokia Comments, pg 14. 124 Intelsat, Inmarsat, and SES Comments, pg 4. 125 Intelsat, Intelsat, SES and Intel’s C‐band Proposal Fact Sheet; http://www.intelsat.com/media‐ resources/intelsat‐ses‐and‐intels‐c‐band‐proposal‐fact‐sheet/. 126 Telesat Comments, par 19; SSi Micro Comments, para 45. 127 Telesat Comments, para 17.
Page 35 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
example, they highlight the DVB-S2X technology that supports, “lower roll-off factors that provide additional bandwidth efficiencies.”128 Technological improvements such as these will not increase demand for C-band satellite services; however, they could be useful in optimizing co-existence between satellite and flexible use services during any transitions to clear as much as of the 3700-4200 MHz band as quickly as possible.
97. We are supportive of Telesat’s proposal to further study a coordination trigger to assist in minimizing impact to legacy satellite services while introducing new flexible use services, up to 3750 MHz immediately and up to 4200 MHz long term, as long as it does not unduly delay the process of doing so. This can most appropriately be undertaken through the Radio Advisory Board of Canada, and the change in noise temperature (ΔT/T) at the satellite receiver, as proposed by Telesat, could be a useful starting input.129
98. The record demonstrates that the best outcome for all Canadians is to take steps to make available wide contiguous channels of up to 100 MHz or more to terrestrial flexible use facilities-based competitors to enable the full benefits of 5G services in the 3300-4200 MHz band to all Canadians. The Department should immediately impose a moratorium on new earth stations or expansions of any existing earth stations in the 3700-4200 MHz frequency range within or near large and medium urban areas, suburban areas, transportation corridors, or hubs close to areas where there is expected to be significant 5G mobile traffic. Any grandfathered earth stations located near these areas should explore site shielding, filters or other interference protection measures so as not to unduly constrain terrestrial 5G deployments. In addition, nothing should prevent commercial negotiation for the relocation of grandfathered sites to assist in the ability of 5G deployment. However, longer transition periods and more flexible earth station siting areas should be permitted in the Far North or remote areas of Canada where satellite service is the only option due to economic or technical challenges.
Q18: ISED is seeking comments on the challenges and considerations related to the coexistence of other services, such as mobile and/or fixed wireless access, in the 3700–4200 MHz band.
128 Ibid, para 18. 129 Ibid, para 9.
Page 36 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
99. Nokia sees the speed of deployment in the 3700-4200 MHz band as significantly faster than mmWave spectrum due, in part, to facilities-based operators’ existing macro deployments, with the 3800 MHz band being very important for 5G mobile in North America within the next few years.130 Ericsson believes that the challenges of sharing between satellites and terrestrial mobile services in 3700-4200 MHz means that it is in the best interest of Canadians to reallocate the spectrum in favour of terrestrial mobile services.131 Rogers shares both these views and fully supports the early introduction of mobile services in the 3700-4200 MHz band to the maximum extent possible. Co-existence issues between mobile and FSS can be worked out and should not delay the introduction mobile services.
100. Satellite providers are of the view that co-frequency sharing in the C-band risks harming incumbent satellite operations and significantly constraining terrestrial 5G operations. They suggest that to prevent potential interference would require large protection zones around each satellite earth station of unknown size but potentially in the tens to hundreds of kilometres range.132 As such exclusion zones could essentially mean no 5G services to most Canadians in the 3700-4200 MHz range if earth stations are located in or near urban centres, we believe this gives impetus to the Department immediately repacking existing services higher in the band with the mid-term goal of satellite services moving into other bands outside of northern and remote parts of Canada.
101. CCI argues that it is a lack of standardization in the satellite industry that has created an environment of isolated, proprietary systems that makes broad co- ordination of existing FSS with terrestrial wireless services almost impossible. However, they believe that existing licensees should be allowed to continue to operate for as long as they continue to transition their use of spectrum away from FSS towards fixed wireless and mobile applications.133 Bell’s call for open dialogue about the Department's plans for the 3700-4220 MHz band, including a Stakeholder Proposal Development process to coordinate with all service providers,134 will help ensure interference is mitigated in the most efficient way possible while reallocating the band for flexible use and we fully support it as a way forward. As part of the open dialogue and providing some regulatory certainty, the Department should provide greater guidance on which portions of the 3700-4200
130 Nokia Comments, pg 15. 131 Ericsson Comments, pg 15. 132 Intelsat, Inmarsat, and SES Comments, pg 5; Telesat Comments, para 20‐21; SSi Micro Comments, para 47. 133 CCI Comments, pg 9. 134 Bell Comments, para 85.
Page 37 of 38 Rogers Communications Consultation on Revisions to the 3500 MHz Band to August 10, 2018 Accommodate Flexible Use and Preliminary Consultation on Changes to the 3800 MHz Band (SLPB-004-18)
MHz band will be auctioned and when and should include a condition of licence to ensure contiguity of the band as additional spectrum is released.
102. Shaw, a C-band incumbent, signals agreement with at least repacking all satellite users higher in the band but believes “all reasonable costs of relocation should be reimbursed”.135 Rogers is supportive of compensating satellite operators for relocation costs from auction proceeds, if required, to help facilitate a more efficient and timely spectrum reallocation to the benefit of all Canadians, a position also supported by Bell.136
103. Rogers thanks the Department for the opportunity to share its views and participate in this consultation process.
135 Shaw Comments, para 76. 136 Bell Comments, para 86.
Page 38 of 38