GLOBAL USE OF 5 GHZ FOR WIRELESS ACCESS STIRS WRC CONTROVERSY

Other key WRC issues raised on panel included potential global harmonization of public safety spectrum, spectrum for terrestrial wireless interactive multimedia systems, possible global allocation for high-altitude platform service at 38 GHz, which is where LMDS systems in U.S. and Canada operate. Several industry officials also said one emerging issue in ITU is potential regulatory interest in ultra-wideband, for which FCC adopted rules earlier this year. Venezuela recently declined invitation to host WRC in 2003 and meeting now is set for Geneva.

On 5 GHz issue, European Committee on Posts & Telecommunications (CPT) members are seeking primary allocation for mobile services in part of that spectrum, said Rawat, who also is vice chmn. of Conference Preparatory Meeting for WRC 2003. WRC 2000 had placed several 5 GHz items on agenda for consideration in 2003, including additional allocations to mobile service for wireless access systems and fixed wireless access in Region 3, which includes Asia-Pacific Region. FCC rules now allow radio LAN and fixed wireless access devices to operate on noninterference, nonprotection basis at 5150-5350 MHz and 5725-5825 MHz. ITU studies are examining mitigation techniques that would allow wireless access systems to avoid interference with other users of that spectrum. While industry in U.S. has viewed 5 GHz as next growth area for similar kinds of unlicensed wireless services as are filling up 2.4 GHz band, NTIA has raised concerns about interference potential to spaceborne active sensors.

Rawat said that in N. America, lower part of 5150-5120 MHz spectrum had rules for feeder link operations. Middle band of 5250-5350 MHz has rules for outdoor use. Upper band of 5470-5725 MHz doesn’t have rules in Canada for license exempt, LAN service or fixed wireless access service, although in Europe such rules are in works for 245 MHz, Rawat said. Canada has proposals for lower portion of that spectrum, but there’s no common regional view in Inter- American Telecommunications Commission (CITEL) in that area, she said. One broader question, she said, is: “Why do we need to do anything for license exempt services in a radio regulation? We should have full flexibility for license exempt services to be able to operate wherever they want as long as they follow the domestic rules.” She said fact that that item had made it onto WRC agenda “actually counters that point that there is no regulatory action needed.”

Agenda item for 5 GHz that stems from last WRC conference covers proposals for new allocation for mobile service, for wireless access systems as well as radio LANs and fixed service in Region 3, Wellstein said. Also included are proposed revisions for earth station satellite and space research service, she said. “Since these particular proposals affect each service in the same band, they have made it into one item,” she said. U.S. has taken “proactive position” because preliminary govt. positions have noted benefits of allowing room for new technologies, alluding to current interference studies, Wellstein said: “They are hoping to get some rallying regions behind them in order to harmonize worldwide the opportunities for this new technology.” Roaming, regulatory certainty, cost reduction and facilitation of investment abroad are among reasons that U.S. has cited for global harmonization in that area. But American Radio Relay League has raised concerns about interference to existing systems and CTIA on behalf of Globalstar has pointed out potential terrestrial interference, she said. NTIA also raised questions, in part about maturity of studies on dynamic frequency allocation systems that could be used to bolster support for global harmonization, she said. “They are recommending that the U.S. take a little more cautious approach.”

Public safety issues center on possibility for global harmonization for future needs, particularly as public safety operators move from narrowband voice and low-speed data to broadband applications, Rawat said. Public safety historically has been national issue, without even harmonized spectrum allocations in N. America except for very limited common bands between Canada and U.S. for interoperability along border, she said. “We are really looking at what can a WRC do if we don’t know clearly what bands we want to harmonize. We don’t know how much spectrum we need for what kind of application because studies are not completed on spectrum requirements,” Rawat said. Canadian regulatory perspective is that it’s important first to recognize issues such as interoperability, lack of spectrum and encryption for public safety, she said. So Canada would like to see resolution at next WRC that spelled out what public safety’s needs were in that area and studies to address them. Canada hasn’t identified 50 MHz at 4.9 GHz for which FCC recently began rulemaking for public safety operations, including broadband applications in relatively short ranges. But she said there was potential opportunity, depending on individual spectrum decisions in bands such as 800 MHz, to work out regional approach before next WRC.

High-altitude platform service (HAPS) issue has drawn particular attention of LMDS licensees as next WRC approaches, several panelists said. Some HAPS operators, which use blimp-type aircraft as part of platform, have been interested in global allocation at 27-31 GHz, which U.S. and Canada have licensed for LMDS operators such as Winstar. At WRC 2000, U.S. and Canada argued that their fixed systems were different from rest of world and needed higher level of protection for Region 2, which covers N. and S. America. In Asia-Pacific countries in Region 3, some national regulators had made provisions to deploy HAPS, but then concluded those systems could operate better in lower bands, Rawat said. Now some countries are turning to plans to offer HAPS in LMDS spectrum of 28-31 GHz, she said.

Among emerging spectrum policy areas at ITU is increased convergence of fixed and mobile wireless services as blurring of those lines increases for many applications, Rawat said. Another area likely to receive attention is that of ultra- wideband. “What does it mean?” she asked. “If you are going to put different applications under ultra-wideband, do I have to have a specific service allocation? I don’t know.” Issue is one that’s expected to get more scrutiny attention as license exempt applications grow, raising question whether they will have to go to WRC in every case to get specific service allocation, she said. “The ITU has certainly noticed ultra-wideband,” said Precursor Group analyst Rudy Baca in separate panel discussion in Boston hosted by firm. “The U.S. State Department has suggested initially to the ITU… that it does not have jurisdiction over ultra-wideband because it is not a dedicated, modulated carrier signal, so the ITU may not exercise jurisdiction over this part of the spectrum.”