<https://www.thewirereport.ca/2019/02/26/radio-interference-5g-delays-raised-in-new-spectrum-tier-consult/#newsarticle>
<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"BCE Inc., Shaw Communications Inc., and Quebecor Inc. are warning against a proposed new smaller spectrum licensing tier, while smaller players and other interested groups cheer on the idea and pitch their own ideas on how to draw up the new area sizes.    Bell is warning the federal government the proposed new tier 5 could lead to “significant” frequency interference problems by creating more border areas operators would have to coordinate on, and that it could also complicate spectrum auctions by adding hundreds or thousands of new service areas.     “The creation of Tier 5 service areas will lead to significant interference challenges, inefficient deployment, and an unnecessarily complex auction process,” said a submission by Bell to the government’s consultation. The initial comments were made public this week.     “We do not recommend that the department create a new set of smaller service areas for spectrum licensing and, at a minimum, urge the department to refrain from employing such service areas in the low-to-mid band spectrum range.”    Quebecor opposed the new tier for those same reasons, plus it said it could increase costs of mobile network deployment and risk slower 5G deployment in Canada.    Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED) launched a consultation for a new category of smaller service areas for spectrum licensing in November, aimed at increasing rural spectrum access and supporting 5G technology. It floated two different ways to slice up the area sizes.     The idea of a smaller tier was quickly praised by small wireless providers that have been asking for smaller area sizes they can afford.    Bell, though, said dividing licences up into smaller areas would “exacerbate” radio interference problems and argued smaller service areas are not required for 5G -- and if anything, could “decrease the viability of deploying 5G in a particular service area.”    It said if the department goes ahead with its plans anyway, it should base the area design on StatCan’s census subdivisions but “drastically” reduce the number of areas “in the interest of interference mitigation as well as administrative feasibility.”     Quebecor meanwhile called using census subdivisions an “extreme approach” that would “hyper-fragment” service areas, and endorsed the population centre model as a last resort.    Shaw questioned why the new tier is needed right now and argued it would be “premature” and “inefficient” develop the new licence area.     “Establishing nationwide Tier 5 licence areas will be a complex and laborious task and yield a tool of questionable use depending on the circumstances in which Tier 5s are eventually proposed for use.”     It recommended ISED first examine the need for “more granular licence areas on a case-by-case basis” and then employ Tier 4 subdivisions.    Rogers Communications Inc. wrote it is “generally supportive of the department’s proposed design principles,” and recommended a modified population centre approach with limited bands available under the new tier.    “Tier 5 service areas are best suited to frequencies above at least 6 GHz at this time. Incompatibility issues currently exist within Tier 4 areas for 3500 MHz, and interference issues would grow substantially worse under a potential Tier 5 licensing,” its submission said.    “It is simply not technically or economically feasible to mitigate potential interference and implement Tier 5 service areas in low or mid-bands in the near-term. In fact, Tier 5 service areas are probably best suited for millimetre wave bands at this time.”    Telus Corp. also said it supports ISED’s proposed design principles in general, but said a new spectrum tier does not have to be the “first recourse for increasing the availability of rural spectrum.”    “The adoption of stringent deployment requirements associated with renewal expectations should be used effectively to encourage a secondary market for rural spectrum.”    It proposed its own tier 5 model based on census consolidated subdivisions because ISED’s proposals had “too many material issues,” such as “impractically small service areas” and “inappropriately sited boundaries intersecting densely populated areas.”    A joint-proposal from Independent Telecommunications Providers’ Association, the British Columbia Broadband Association, Canwisp, the Canadian Communication Systems Alliance, Cogeco Inc., SSI Micro Ltd. and others applauded the proposals, saying that “smaller service areas are a much-needed tool to help ensure spectrum is used as efficiently as possible.” The group proposed its own hybrid design that’s different for rural, remote and urban areas, respectively.     It called for additional policies to bridge the rural-urban digital divide, including spectrum set-asides for “smaller regional or rural operators or for new entrants,” alternative auction formats and new licensing obligations to encourage spectrum subordination.     “Smaller service areas make possible a more flexible and effective assignment of spectrum across the country, but they do not prevent operators from attempting to hoard spectrum and they do not ensure the same licensing framework is suitable for all bands in all places.”    It wasn’t just telecoms that weighed in on the proposed spectrum tier.    Energy sector groups and utilities such as Imperial Oil Ltd., Suncor Energy Inc., Syncrude Canada Ltd. and the Canadian Electricity Association wrote into the process supporting smaller tiers. The CEA wrote it would be “key to incentivizing better wireless coverage in the rural and remote parts of Canada,” while Imperial Oil said it would let Canadian industries deploy “next generation wireless communication infrastructure within the boundaries of their operating leases.”    Toronto Police Services meanwhile wrote that smaller spectrum areas “will be required” to deal with 5G small cell deployments, and argued that service areas should align with municipal boundaries and access agreements.    The Quebec regional MRC de Témiscouata wrote that a majority of residents in its area municipalities lack access to a cell network or face very limited coverage, and that the proposals from ISED would help rural connectivity and promote underused frequency bands.     One individual Canadian filed a submission.    A political aide to Nova Scotia Liberal MP Bill Casey -- Joel Henderson, a lawyer by trade who plans to seek the Liberal nomination in Cumberland-Colchester to replace Casey in the next election -- wrote in support of ISED’s proposed census subdivision model.    “The initiative of ISED to crack Tier 4 into finer gradations in Tier 5 is a good idea and suitable for ensuring that the critical work of connecting rural communities can accelerate without coming into direct conflict with the roll-out of 5G technology,” he wrote.      — With reporting by Kyle Duggan at kduggan@thewirereport.ca and editing by Anja Karadeglija at akarad@thewirereport.ca"
<https://www.thewirereport.ca/2019/02/26/radio-interference-5g-delays-raised-in-new-spectrum-tier-consult/>