Submission on the Ministry of Economic Development's Spectrum Allocation Discussion Paper

Spectrum Allocation for Broadband Wireless Access
Radio Spectrum Policy and Planning
Ministry of Economic Development
PO Box 1473
WELLINGTON

To whom it may concern

This submission from InternetNZ is in response to the discussion paper “Spectrum Allocations for Broadband Wireless Access” issued with a request for comments by 4 August 2006.

Name:     Nick Wallingford
Position in organisation:         Technical Analyst
Organisation:         InternetNZ
Contact details:     PO Box 11881, Wellington
Email:     nickw@internetnz.net.nz
Nature of organisation's business:     Internet advocacy, management of the .nz domain name system, ownership of the .nz domain name registry, extensive work programme engaging with stakeholders and the government on issues relating to our mission.

Introduction

InternetNZ participated in the 'stocktake' undertaken earlier this year by the Minister of Communications and Information Technology.  This submission extends and develops the principles and recommendations made in that process to the realm of the wireless spectrum.

In that submission, InternetNZ stated:

“InternetNZ recommends a review of spectrum management, specifically the establishment of a community framework for spectrum utilization which provides for community based and / or non-commercial broadband wireless initiatives. Wireless broadband networks are examples of how public spectrum is used by local communities looking to establish affordable broadband public access.”

InternetNZ believes that New Zealand's geography and, specifically, the significant distances between population centres mean that wireless-based networking solutions are going to become increasingly significant over time, their growth matching or exceeding copper and fibre-based broadband network growth.

Wireless-based broadband offers access to high-performance networking in many environments where distance or the nature of existing cable resources reduces the utility of other solutions.

Several ranges of frequencies of the existing unlicensed spectrum are now effectively saturated due to the growth in the provision of devices in the market (cordless telephones, baby monitors and other such devices).  To compensate for this, InternetNZ would like to see a review to look at
options available for non-commercial use of spectrum for community
purposes. This submission is made with that general recommendation in mind.
InternetNZ is concerned at the potential for restrictions on the development and implementation of new uses for frequencies if the regulatory environment is too rigidly imposed.  Concerns over spectrum availability for Internet television services have been expressed (http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411415/800402) which need to be addressed for innovation to be encouraged.


Potential for Wireless in New Zealand

InternetNZ has an interest in seeing the deployment of a diverse range of Internet supporting technologies such as wireless and a diverse range of healthy wireless service providers using those technologies appropriately.  The Society will in this submission offer comment on each of the technologies and will note the appropriateness of each such that it supports InternetNZ's goals in terms of the Internet in NZ.

InternetNZ works to keep the Internet open and uncaptureable. It sees wireless as a critical component to the Open aspect, and a diverse set of wireless providers is a key element to the uncaptureable aspect.


Fixed Wireless Access (FWA), WLANs (WiFi), WiMAX

InternetNZ sees wireless as fulfilling several functions with respect to other methods of delivering connectivity to NZ. Wireless connectivity, particularly those in the FWA/WiFi/WiMax area (point to point and point to multipoint) is the "icebreaker" in terms of increasing connectivity to the average New Zealander.

These are the technologies that will enable very high speed connections that in some cases were previously seen as uneconomic (particularly point to point), and in other cases (but not always) seeding markets for secondary, more permanent phases, of connectivity using wired/cabled techniques. With wireless comes the relative advantage of comparatively economic redeployment in remaining poorly connected parts of NZ. Naturally there will be cases where wireless connectivity is a permanent fixture.


Managed Parks

These technologies (disregarding those currently under the Public Park regime) are suitable candidates for the proposed 'Managed Park' regime - but InternetNZ is cautious about this recommendation without a greater knowledge of what the 'Managed Park' regime may actually entail. The Society would reserve full support of 'Managed Park' until more is known about the proposed regime itself. Point to Point Managed Park may have different policies to Point to Multipoint Managed Park.

In general InternetNZ tends to view Managed Park as new spectrum allocations, forming the crucial bridge between Public Park and Management Rights in the service provider licensing continuum. InternetNZ does not see transforming a Public Park into a Managed Park as viable, but does see the reversion of Managed Park to Public Park, combined with a balanced review process, as entirely feasible.

Noting the 'icebreaker' redeployment aspect and a proposed Managed Park regime, the  Society recommends care is taken to ensure that a Managed Park is kept distinct from any implementation which is national in it's scope.


Policy Differentiations

InternetNZ also recommends taking care from a policy perspective in two particular areas:

1. Asymmetry
2. Distribution

The Digital Strategy is based around 3 key concepts:

1. Content
2. Confidence
3. Connection

Two of these concepts are linked to asymmetry and distribution.

Asymmetry in a connection creates outcomes that do not support the 'Content' aspect of the Digital Strategy. RSM needs develop Radio Spectrum policies that support symmetric wireless connections between any wireless customer or connected party, and the rest of the Internet.

Customers of wireless service providers should be able to easily provide information and services to the Internet, just as easily as they can be consumers of information and services from the Internet.

Continued support of an approach where NZ is collectively an 'information sink' will not address the balance of trade in terms of bandwidth across the Pacific - one of the single biggest economic factors of being online in NZ in terms of affordability. A set of Radio Spectrum Management policies that supports content (and service) provision towards the global Internet will in part address that balance.

InternetNZ view is that greater distribution of the ability (through access to the appropriate licensing regime) to actually create connections for New Zealanders will have a positive impact on the "Confidence" aspect of the Digital Strategy.  InternetNZ would like to see more policies (particularly around point to multipoint) that enable a greater number of smaller regional and provincial operators to bloom and succeed, without being picked off by established National Operators.

In InternetNZ's view, such a regime will have benefits in terms of driving the regional economies (growth and development going back into those regions), and will also assist in delivering a better level of service to communities - as it is the "community helping themselves to be connected". This will help drive up the Confidence aspect of the Digital Strategy.

The Internet flourishes when it is a Network of Networks, rather than simply a Network of a Network.


Satellite, Cellular, Digital Broadcasting

Licensing Regimes associated with the above 3 three technologies are best addressed by incumbent operators, though InternetNZ will note that the satellite solution tends to be asymmetric in nature and therefore is covered by our comments above. InternetNZ tend to see the IP Protocol as the service convergence layer, and as such can not clearly see the distinction between Broadband Internet and Broadcasting in the future.


Comments on Specific Questions from the Discussion Paper

6a. Should spectrum for future BWA deployment be reserved as a Managed Park? Why or why not?

Yes, but the Managed Park policies need further development before InternetNZ could fully support this approach.

6b. Should a Managed Park allocated for BWA deployment be available to regional providers? Why or why not?

Yes. It should be a primarily regional implementation. See comments above.

6c. How should access to Managed Parks be controlled when entrant demand in a particular area exceeds the sharing capability of the band.

Late entrants should be encouraged and incented to work with early entrants to maximise the usefulness (optimisation) of the existing wireless infrastructure where a Managed Park is full. There should be a strict 'use or lose it' policy associated with Managed Park. Incentives should exist for late entrants to enter adjacent Managed Parks. Careful independent assessment of the sharing capability of a Managed Park should be carried out. Entrants should not be permitted to enter multiple adjacent managed parks (and effectively implementing a national implementation through Managed Parks). InternetNZ sees Regional Managed Parks as being more suited for point to multipoint. A National Managed Park may be more appropriate for point to point applications.


7a. Do you have an interest in using the 2.3 GHz band?

InternetNZ supports the deployment of WiMax

7b. Do you consider the proposed re-packaging to be appropriate for this band? If not, what do you consider to be the optimum packaging for this band?

InternetNZ supports repackaging. Particularly given that renewal rights will not be offered to the incumbents in 2010, who have so far failed to demonstrate utilising the bands in 16 years. The Society has serious doubts about the ability of the incumbents to make effective use of the band in 4 years, by which time it is too late.

InternetNZ supports the proposed re-packaging model, but recommend schanging it to two lots of Managed Park, and one National Allocation. This would preserve a future opportunity for a second National Allocation in the 506-806Mhz Band that would leverage a large amount of existing infrastructure.

7c. What do you consider to be the optimum use for this band?

See above.

8d. Which form of management would you consider to be optimal for this band: management rights; spectrum licences under Crown management; public parks; Managed Parks; or a combination thereof?

General Comment:  InternetNZ wishes to see further development of a digital/IP OB strategy that made more efficient use of the band by existing operators. This is heavily linked to emerging near contribution quality compression approaches. Potentially leave Point to Point for OB use, with spectrum licences under Crown management for BWA, until OB operators could shift to 2.7-2.9 Ghz or readily use IP based means of OB on the new platforms. OB could potentially leverage proposed services in the 70,80 & 90 Ghz bands. Given time, the necessity for longer propagation 2.5 Ghz links will reduce on the assumption that in general, the NZ high speed digital core is expanding towards common OB sites. Sports Stadiums etc.


10c. Which form of management would you consider to be optimal for this band: management rights; spectrum licences under Crown management; public parks; Managed Parks; or a combination thereof?

InternetNZ would support the adoption of a Managed Park first, with an option to reverting it to Public Park where appropriate when a "to be determined" set of Criteria  are not met. There's no point locking away a resource that could potentially be used more effectively under a lighter handed regime. Assuming Managed Park is implemented regionally, it's possible to do a change of certain Managed Parks to Public Parks on a region by region basis to stimulate use.


11c. Which form of management would you consider to be optimal for these bands: management rights; spectrum licences under Crown management; public parks; Managed Parks; or a combination thereof?

Combination of Managed Park in sparsely populated areas (i.e non metro), combined with spectrum licences under Crown management in densely populated areas.