World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC 12) Intellect Response February 2010 Russell Square House T 020 7331 2000 10-12 Russell Square F 020 7331 2040 London WC1B 5EE www.intellectuk.org Information Technology Telecommunications & Electronics Association Contact: Henry Parker T 020 7331 2019 E [email protected] About Intellect Intellect is the UK trade association for the technology industry which comprises the information and communications technologies (ICT), electronics manufacturing and design and consumer electronics (CE) sectors, including defence and space-related IT. We are formed by 780 Small to Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs) and multinational member companies with interests in these sectors and exist solely for their benefit. Over the last 12 months, we have hosted 550 meetings attended by 3,486 people visiting our London offices and hosted 60 events for our member companies. 3,900 delegates have attended conferences we have organised in the past year. The industries that Intellect represents contribute at least 10% of the UK’s GDP, employ approximately 5m people and contribute £120 billion to the UK economy. Some of the companies involved in our work in relation to spectrum allocation and licensing are shown in Annex One to this response. Question 1: Are there any opportunities or threats associated with WRC-12 in addition to those already identified in this consultation? Do you agree with the prioritisation of the agenda items, and if you have identified any opportunities or threats, does this have an impact on these priorities? Intellect believe that Ofcom have captured the threats and opportunities associated with WRC-12 correctly, in the sense that most (if not all) of the variable (as opposed to the standing agenda items) create both threats and opportunities for stakeholders engaged with radio communications. Whether the proposals under a given item are a threat or an opportunity depends very much on which stakeholder you engage with. In producing this response, Intellect believe we are in a unique position, in that we are able to collate the interests of both terrestrial and space based wireless services from a commercial perspective. It is also noticeable that that the community of member companies that have produced this response comprise both large multinational companies, who participate in some of the existing Ofcom/Industry forums discussing WRC’s, as well as range of Small to Medium Sized, and micro-businesses, with whom Ofcom may not have engaged at all on this topic. We understand that this consultation has been initiated with this objective in mind. Question 2: Do you have any comments on the mechanism for UK preparation for WRCs and the role of Ofcom in this process? As indicated in the consultation document, the formal responsibility for the UK preparations rests with the UK Spectrum Strategy Committee and the IFPG, chaired by Ofcom, has delegated responsibility. With this structure, there is a need to clarify and potentially review the policy objectives on which the UK positions should be based. The basis for UK positions on WRC issues is often unclear. Ofcom’s policy objectives are based on maximising benefits for the UK citizen and consumer1, but in the global regulatory forum of the World Radiocommunication Conference, changes to Radio Regulations have, at most, a very indirect impact on UK citizens and consumers of radiocommunication services. In contrast, the impact on UK industry may be much more direct and significant. Successful UK industry benefits all UK citizens through its contribution to the UK economy, and yet policy objectives related to the support of UK industry seem to be missing from the UK preparatory 1 Given in the general duties of Ofcom in the Communications Act 2003 3 (1) Intellect Response: Ofcom Consultation on World Radiocommunication Conference 2012 (WRC 12) Page 2 of 13 process. For several sectors of UK industry, the outcome of WRCs has a significant impact. For example the aviation industry, the HF broadcasting industry, the satellite communications industry and the space science industry all rely on internationally harmonised frequency arrangements in the Radio Regulations. For some other industry sectors, such as the terrestrial mobile industry and domestic terrestrial broadcasting industry, internationally harmonised frequency arrangements are highly beneficial even if they are not an absolute necessity. Changes to the Regulations can, and often do, have a positive or negative impact on these industry sectors. Ofcom’s own figures note that in 2005/06, the estimated economic benefit arising from use of spectrum was £42 billion2. There is every reason to believe that this total now far higher, especially given the growth of data communications using wireless. It is quite apparent that many other countries determine their national positions for the WRC giving strong weight to the requirements of their industry. It is also apparent that Ofcom is reluctant to give consideration of the benefits to UK industry, even on issues where the effect on UK citizens is minor or neutral. This places UK industry at a disadvantage compared to industry in other countries. Intellect has supported the relevant provisions of the Digital Economy Bill related to the encouragement of efficient investment in infrastructure, currently before Parliament, with these views in mind. Intellect suggests a review of the general policy objectives on which the UK positions should be based, with stronger emphasis given to support of UK industry objectives. We believe we provide a technology and commercially neutral forum to determine these objectives and would be pleased to assist Ofcom in any such review with these attributes in mind. Question 3: Do you agree with Ofcom’s view that WRC-12 does not have direct implications for equality or diversity of UK citizens? Intellect concurs with the Ofcom view in relation to this matter Question 4: Do you agree with Ofcom’s view that it is beneficial to identify spectrum for ENG use on a non-exclusive basis in order to support market-led, non-mandatory harmonization? Intellect supports Ofcom’s views on Agenda Item 1.5, that any identification of spectrum for ENG use should be on a non-exclusive basis and that the objective of such identification should be to provide a tuning range for ENG equipments within which different sub-bands are likely to be available in different countries. Intellect also understands Ofcom’s view in favour of a market-led, non mandatory harmonization of spectrum and strongly believes that this could be best achieved by the current Method 1 of draft CPM text with the rationalization of frequencies for ENG use through the creation of a database of frequencies used in each country for ENG. This method would require no change to Article 5 of Radio Regulations and would provide foreign newscasters with the needed information to ensure that they deploy with equipment that will operate within a given country and allow broadcasters to seek approval for spectrum use. It will also provide manufacturers with a knowledge base of required spectrum parameters that will enable them to build common-use equipment that will leverage economies-of-scale for the worldwide ENG market. Indeed, Intellect notes that equipment for ENG are usually 2 Ofcom Report: The economic impact of the use of radio spectrum in the UK Intellect Response: Ofcom Consultation on World Radiocommunication Conference 2012 (WRC 12) Page 3 of 13 designed for operation over a large frequency range (on a tunable basis) with hardware filtering for the whole operation band (rather than a specific operation channel). Therefore, economies of scale and ease of circulation of equipment for ENG can be obtained through this market led approach, rather than through harmonization of specific frequency bands to be available across regions/countries. Furthermore, Intellect recommends the following: • Spectrum identification should not constrain or jeopardise the usage of spectrum already harmonized for the development of new and innovative services. A good example is the L-Band: a CEPT-wide harmonised spectrum band (under the Maastricht Agreement) for mobile multimedia services that are incompatible with ENG operation as several contributions to CEPT studies are recently demonstrating. • Ofcom to oppose the inclusion of already harmonized spectrum (such as for example L-Band) whenever this could be constrained or jeopardized by potential ENG use. • Spectrum identification process for ENG use should consider co-existence studies with potentially impacted services in order to avoid disruptions and Ofcom to oppose from the potential candidate identified spectrum for ENG use, that spectrum that does not satisfy the previously mentioned criteria (for example the L-Band). • Spectrum identification for ENG use should be as wide as possible and take into account professional vs. non professional use to have a future proof solution and allow each country to select the most appropriate frequency sub-band for ENG operation, depending on services deployed on a national basis and local market condition. • Support Method 1 of the draft CPM text as the best approach to achieve and support Ofcom’s view for a non exclusive non mandatory spectrum identification for ENG use. Question 5: Do you agree with Ofcom’s aim to seek an appropriate regulatory framework to facilitate the development of fixed service in the bands above 71 GHz Intellect concurs with Ofcom’s intention promote and facilitate use of spectrum above 71 GHz by fixed services. It is important that in seeking to promote an appropriate regulatory framework, Ofcom ensures that it takes into account the requirements of other services operating above 71 GHz. We also believe that in the course of promoting a given framework under this agenda item, Ofcom should ensure that there is no intention to extend the frequency allocations to fixed services. Question 6: Do you agree with Ofcom’s intended approach to use of the band 21.4 – 22 GHz? Intellect agrees with Ofcom that flexible use of the 21.4-22 GHz band is critical for the successful deployment of satellite systems.