Frequency Management

1. Technology Neutrality - Why Europe Got on Board
Presentation for:
International Roundtable Discussion on a Technology Neutral Spectrum Regime
in the Indonesian Cellular Business
(Examining the Impact of a Technology Neutral Spectrum Regime)
Hotel Borobudur, Jakarta
8 May 2012
By:
Erik Bohlin
Chalmers University of Technology
Gothenburg, Sweden
Note: Collaboration with Simon Forge, SCF Associates, is gratefully acknowledged

2. 1. Why might an NRA take the principle of technology neutrality as a
starting point when legislating?
2. How might the NRA use the principle in formulating regulation?
Three Key Questions
3. In what circumstances would it be appropriate for the NRA to take
the principle as a starting point?
- We only really address question 1
- And look at a European example (WAPECS) for question 2
- Question 3 requires close consideration of each set of local conditions.
2

3. What is Technology Neutrality in Spectrum Terms?
• The concept behind technology neutral spectrum licensing is to
let any technology that fits into the spectrum band available be
used – so spectrum management regulation should neither
require nor assume a particular technology
• This contrasts with previous concepts - of prescribing in detail• This contrasts with previous concepts - of prescribing in detail
what technology and protocol can be used in each band and so
how to exploit the spectrum
• The only real restriction is that the bandwidth allotted must be
kept to – e.g., apply a “block edge mask”, to severely restrict
transmissions outside the allotted band.
3

4. What is Technology Neutrality in Spectrum Terms?
• Technology neutrality complements service neutrality – i.e., use
spectrum for whatever services the operator desires – e.g., public
mobile, or TV broadcast, or private mobile, etc.
• In the EU it comes under the new generation of spectrum
management policies (e.g., “WAPECS“) developed over the last 5-management policies (e.g., “WAPECS“) developed over the last 5-
10 years and now progressing with sharing
Examples –
•GSM of any generation (2G, 3G, HSPDA, etc.) - or CDMA - or any
other (Wi-Fi, etc.)
•LTE FDD, LTE TDD, LTE FDD/TDD, or WiMAX (or Wi-Fi, etc.)
4

5. What Are the Economic Benefits of Technology Neutrality?
• Governments do not have to pick the technological winner
• Multiple technologies can be developed – and compete – ensuring
technical progress and price competition on equipment for both the
network infrastructure and subscriber investment – operators can pick
their technology, not the NRAs
• Spectrum should be used more efficiently – customers for the service vote
for the technology by buying the service – if the technology is too
advanced, or quality of service is too poor, or the service is too expensive,
then the market ‘decides’ – examples of technology choices by markets: -
o Increasing demand for data for internet access is pushing broadband
technologies
o However, in some geographic markets, many customers may still be satisfied
with 2G voice
o And in the EU, international data roaming over 3G for internet use is too costly
5

6. What Are the Economic Benefits of Technology Neutrality?
• Users derive maximum benefit in terms of choice, price
and quality
• There is no distortion or restriction of competition in the
sector
• Efficient investment in infrastructure is encouraged for
operators
• Innovation is promoted
6

7. Where HAVE WE BEEN before with Technology Neutrality ?
• Before, generally it was not considered reasonable to let the MNOs
choose their technology – the spectrum use and its technology were
proscribed in detail
• Interestingly, it has been argued (e.g., EBU 2007*) that there was a
more nuanced reason to prohibit technology neutrality by themore nuanced reason to prohibit technology neutrality by the
broadcasters:
• “Technology neutrality may one day become technically feasible.
•Today, however, the scope for any transmission to cause interference to
other users reduces its potential.”
*REF : EBU TECHNICAL REVIEW – January 2007, N. Laflin & B. Dajka, A Simple Guide To Radio Spectrum
7

8. Europe’s Response to the Potential Economic Advantages – a New
Spectrum Policy in 2005 – WAPECS*
• Overall objective of WAPECS is to ensure a coherent authorisation scheme which
leads to a minimum set of pan-European conditions for access to important
bands, for the EU
• One of the key principles and goals of WAPECS is technology neutrality,
complementing service neutrality.
• WAPECS facilitates the convergence of media and telecoms across a wide
selection of frequencies, for a wide range of services. Important bands include:-
*Wireless Access Policy for Electronic Communications Services, 2005
REF: RSPG, Opinion on Wireless Access Policy for Electronic Communications Services, RSPG05-102final, Brussels, Nov. 2005
selection of frequencies, for a wide range of services. Important bands include:-
•UHF broadcast bands
•The 2G mobile bands
•The 2GHz band - currently used for UMTS in Europe, 2500-2690 MHz -
envisaged for 3G, and 3.4-3.8 GHz already auctioned in some parts of Europe for
broadband wireless access.
• At a policy level, WAPECS is seen as necessary for opening the spectrum and
making innovation in Europe happen
8

9. Where Are We NOW with Technology Neutrality ?
• Spectrum management is moving to a more liberalised world
where the market can decide how spectrum is to be used
and for what services.
• Supporters of the new approach argue that technology
neutrality in spectrum allocation is a better guarantee forneutrality in spectrum allocation is a better guarantee for
efficiency.
9

10. Traditional regime of
spectrum regulation
••Forbid everythingForbid everything
••Only permit explicitOnly permit explicit
exceptionsexceptions
SCFAssociatesLtd
Traditional regime of
spectrum regulation
••Forbid everythingForbid everything
••Only permit explicitOnly permit explicit
exceptionsexceptions
SCFAssociatesLtdTechnology Neutrality Is Part of a New Overall Approach to Spectrum
Regulation -
a progressive strategy for spectrum usage and its management– with its new legal regime
The new regime
••Allow anythingAllow anything
••Only forbid in explicitOnly forbid in explicit
casescasesexceptionsexceptions
SCFAssociatesLtd
exceptionsexceptions
SCFAssociatesLtd
casescases
Regulator’s
role
Controller and commander Co-ordinator and facilitator
Decision
Criteria
How many users How much interference
Economic &
legal status
Marketable property – restricted
economic benefit from sale to
‘owner’
Publicly owned commodity - widespread
economic benefit from sharing
10

11. • With greater propagation range at lower frequencies, 3G UMTS900 can
provide the same coverage with two to three times fewer cell sites than
UMTS2100 as the UMTS900 cell radius is typically almost twice that of a
2100 MHz site.
• Therefore, deploying UMTS900 can save 50% to 70% on RAN CAPEX and
OPEX costs, vs. UMTS2100 and also involves reduced rollout time.
Refarming 2G following Technology Neutrality Has Some Major
Benefits when the Same Technology Is Re-used at a Lower Frequency
Example for 3G, UMTS
OPEX costs, vs. UMTS2100 and also involves reduced rollout time.
• Radio propagation path-loss at 900 MHz is much lower. And indoor
coverage has improved signal strength, cf 2100 MHz, as has in-rain and
tree-coverage propagation
Additionally, presents the same cell radius for packet data services for
optimal coverage and performance as for 2G GSM900 voice.
Source : SCF Associates Ltd 11

12. Capex and Opex Costs for Rural & Suburban Coverage
- Swapping 2G GSM for 3G UMTS at 900 MHz
UMTS 2100
Cost
Savings of 50
to 70%UMTS 900
12

13. • Elisa in Finland (a 2G and 3G MNO ) re-used its existing GSM900 sites and bands in
2007 to fill in areas not covered by the urban UMTS2100 network already in
operation
• The 900 MHz sites in the lower-density areas offered unused bandwidth that could
be shifted into a UMTS900 overlay without deterioration of existing 2G GSM service.
• When co-locating UMTS900 on existing cell sites, Elisa also squeezed the GSM900
network into less spectrum
Refarming 2G Using Technology Neutrality Example – Finland
• Although introducing some minimal interference, this freed up as many channels as
possible for UMTS900 – by using novel GSM network feature (adaptive multi-rate
half-rate, AMR HR)
• Using UMTS900 gave same coverage for 3G mobile data as for its 2G voice. Data rate
performance of UMTS900 and UMTS2100 is the same - typical data rates from 2
Mbps to 5 Mbps with maximum peak data rates up to 7 Mbps
• Elisa’s first UMTS900 call was made first in November 2006 to prove the technology
Sources : industry, Elisa 13

14. • In Europe, 2G GSM mobile is typically at 2 allocations: 900 MHz (880–915
MHz/925–960 MHz) and 1800 MHz (1710–1785 MHz/1805–1880 MHz or
PCS/DCS).
• On 27 July 2009, the EU Council of Ministers approved a proposal from
European Commission to update EU legislation (the GSM Directive) on the
use of radio spectrum for mobile services
• This opened the 2G bands for 3G technologies - e.g., UMTS900 in the 900
MHz band.
Europe Has Passed Technology Neutrality into Law for
2G Re-use
MHz band.
• EC also adopted a Decision defining tech specs for co-existence of 2G/GSM
phones and 3G/UMTS systems on GSM frequencies, in line with the
Directive.
• National administrations obliged to implement Directive - ensuring 900
MHz for 3G by law
• Tech specs for high speed UMTS, WCDMA-HSPA in the 900 MHz band
(UMTS900) were completed December 2005 by 3GPP (900 MHz band:
denoted as Band Class VIII; defined as paired bands at 880 to 915 MHz
(uplink), and 925 to 960 MHz (downlink).
14