Spectrum, Spectrum, Spectrum
ICASA’s criteria for allocation of spectrum in the 2.6GHz band seem most likely to lead to a non-standardized, even perhaps unique band plan for these valuable frequencies. This outcome would be bad for South Africa, its broadband and hence economic development, and its consumers.
Muddled Thinking
ICASA’s thinking is muddled: on the one hand it emphasizes that it favours “technological (sic) neutral” licenses, yet on the other its decisions and comments, such as that it would be an “untenable” situation if the 50MHz of spectrum allocated to Sentech at the bottom end of the band were to be rearranged, effectively violate this principle.
The possibility mooted by ICASA that operators could bid for paired spectrum without such a rearrangement is in practice meaningless, not to mention the adverse consequences of the potentially lengthy negotiations and waste of spectrum that would be required to cope with interference if blocks of paired and unpaired spectrum were somehow nevertheless allocated within the band in a manner that, as ICASA intends, is not specifically prescribed before bids have to be submitted.
It is also revealing and an obvious oxymoron that the 2.6GHz band is often referred to in South Africa as “WiMAX spectrum”, whereas it has been defined by the ITU as the IMT-2000 extension band, for which several technologies are suited, of which WiMAX is only one and by far not the most popular alternative.
The ICASA criteria explicitly rejects the globally harmonized ITU Option 1 that includes 140 MHz of paired spectrum and 50 MHz of unpaired spectrum, and is suited to the deployment of the probably most popular and widespread next generation LTE systems in FDD operation, allowing room at the same time for TDD systems such as TDD WiMAX and TDD LTE.
This ITU band plan is closer to being technology neutral than the proposed ICASA conditions which effectively exclude FDD operation. Evidence from other auctions of 2.6GHz spectrum (Hong Kong, Scandinavia) has demonstrated that paired spectrum is more highly in demand than unpaired spectrum.
Local approach leads to higher costs
Among the several less than optimum and avoidable consequences of the likely implementation of the proposed ICASA criteria would be higher costs than necessary for the wireless equipment required (base stations and most importantly subscriber terminals), and at most limited international roaming capabilities for subscribers to the networks that would be deployed.
Harmonization
Countries that wish to expand the coverage of affordable broadband wireless services as rapidly and as widely as possible should adopt harmonized band plans unless there are compelling local reasons not to do so. There do not appear to be any such reasons for South Africa to isolate itself in this manner, an outcome that may be a consequence of lobbying that includes repeated misrepresentations by Intel and other self-interested advocates for mobile WiMAX which exaggerate the extent of the scope and value of this useful but nevertheless niche technology which is for now only available for TDD operation, although FDD versions are being developed.
It has to be hoped that other influences on spectrum policy in the Republic, such as the Department of Communications, will intervene to ensure that South Africa becomes a pacesetter for allocation of the 2.6GHz band in Africa in a globally standardized structure, in order to take advantage of the economic and operational benefits that will flow from deployment of the most popular broadband wireless technologies that are supported around the globe by the largest and extremely competitive group of suppliers and developers.
Read the full article at the BMI-T Navigator
ICASA spectrum allocation discussion
Loading ...