In India, the telecommunication spectrum is a fertile band of unending frequency of disputes and controversies, even warranting, at occasions, the intervention of the Supreme Court.
Whether it was the amazing cancellation by the Supreme Court of quite a few mobile licences on account of spectrum elements or no matter if the earlier GSM-CDMA dispute or the Dewas S-band spectrum controversy, this nation tends to create needless difficulties and debates in matters that are handled far more objectively and amicably in other regimes.
Currently, hot debates are raging about what is known as the C-band spectrum (radio frequencies inside bands 4 GHz and 8 GHz) and the warring camps involved are the incumbent satellite and broadcasting operators, pitted against the new and upcoming 5G technologies operators.
One portion of the band—from 3.7 GHz to 4.2 GHz—has traditionally been, and is nevertheless getting, utilised by broadcasters and multi-program operators (MSOs) for giving cable and satellite (C&S) services for more than two decades in conformance with the government’s spectrum allocation policy, the National Frequency Allocation Plan 2018 (NFAP)—which itself is aligned to the worldwide body, the International Telecommunication Union’s Radio Regulations.
Part of the C-band, in particular from 3.3 GHz to 3.6 GHz, is globally the coveted ‘mid-band spectrum’, earmarked by the NFAP for allocation to 5G operators. This band is incredibly vital for the new 5G technologies. According to the worldwide apex body for mobile operators, the GSMA, the spectrum band represents “a balancing point between coverage and capacity that provides the perfect environment for the earliest 5G connectivity.”
Strictly speaking, there need to have be no difficulty in the above scenario and a ‘peaceful coexistence’ is certainly feasible and each technologies could flourish and develop healthily. This is due to the fact there is a separation or ‘guard-band’ of one hundred MHz in between the two technologies to preclude the possibilities of any interference. Needless to say, any interference in between frequencies of unique technologies would straight harm the high-quality of service to clients of satellite/broadcasting as effectively as telecom services, and lead to an unacceptable scenario.
It is an indisputable reality that India requires to expeditiously roll out superior high-quality 5G networks for buyer added benefits as effectively as for accelerating our general financial improvement in the several verticals of healthcare, manufacturing, market 4., transportation and logistics, and so on. Hence, the availability of sufficient mid-band-spectrum is a really important need to have for the nation.
Experts the globe more than frequently agree that to provide successful 5G services, one have to have 80-one hundred MHz per operator. Generally speaking, the more the spectrum, the greater the high-quality of service in terms of speed, reliability, and so on. In India, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) had also not too long ago stated (as per media reports) that an operator should really have at least 80 MHz every single in the mid-band.
Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia, with climates equivalent to India’s, supply exciting circumstances of allocation.
Hong Kong has assigned 300 MHz (3.3 GHz to 3.6 GHz) for 5G. China is equivalent, albeit 3.3 GHz to 3.4 GHz is earmarked for shared use. In Singapore, 225 MHz is allocated (3425 MHz to 3650 MHz) and only two 5G licences awarded—one to Singtel and the other to a joint venture of its MNO rivals. Each has been provided one hundred MHz in 3.5 GHz. Additionally, Singapore’s regulator has advised the 5G and the satellite operators to use acceptable band pass filters (BPF) to cater to the decreased guard band of 50 MHz in between the two services. In Malaysia, only a single entity, which is a consortium of several licences, is getting awarded one hundred MHz of 3.5 GHz.
Clearly, consideration of all the above circumstances does (sources: GSMA and GSA) not provide a resolution because there are as several nations giving 300 MHz or much less as the quantity of nations that provide 400 MHz or more.
The case of the US is of unique interest. There, following discussion, dialogue and incentives, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) persuaded quite a few incumbent satellite operators to vacate their C-band spectrum for a massive compensation of almost $10 billion. Even with this, some operators have not agreed and there is a likelihood of litigation arising to assert incumbent contractual rights.
It have to be appreciated that the C&S sector is vital for the nation’s communication and entertainment services reaching 207 million Television households in each rural and urban locations. The sector consists of 911 registered Television channels, which are all transmitted via C-band satellites and simultaneously received by 1,701 registered distribution platform operators (DPOs) spread all more than India. The sector supplies direct and indirect employment to almost 2 million individuals. The per capita media consumption via Television grew at the price of 6.7% CAGR from 2018 to 2020, to attain about 4.2 hours per day. Such an vital financial sector should really not be disrupted. The value of the C-band for an all-climate transmission requirement in a tropical atmosphere like India is a great deal more than in non-tropical environments like the US, Europe or the Middle East.
According to the NFAP 2018, C-band frequencies from 3.3 GHz to 3.6 GHz (i.e. 300 MHz) are earmarked for 5G. Obviously, this could be inadequate for the 4 mobile operators in India, and there are rumours that the one hundred MHz guard band in between 3.6 GHz and 3.7 GHz is getting viewed as for providing to 5G. By performing so, certainly, every single mobile operator would be in a position to get one hundred MHz in mid-band spectrum, which is a superior quantum for giving higher-high-quality services.
However, the above move has triggered a great deal consternation and alarm in the C&S sector as they are concerned that the inevitable out-of-band emission (OBE) would interfere with their satellite band of 3.7 GHZ to 4.2 GHz, because 5G signals would be far more potent and all-pervasive as compared to satellite signals. They keep that a separation of one hundred MHz is important in between 5G services and satellite services in order to guarantee continuous satisfactory signals in the 3.7 GHz to 4.2 GHz bands. They cite the instance of the Hong Kong regulator (the Office of the Communications Authority) whose research established this requirement.
While the C&S and 5G camps have a absolutely opposite position in this matter, there is a moderate camp that suggests the government could work on 80 MHz per 5G operator like advised by several authorities, and by performing so there would be a need to have to only take up 20 MHz out of one hundred MHz guard band and this may well represent an acceptable high-quality scenario with respect to interference in between the two technologies. However, the satellite sector vehemently opposes even this as causing dangerous interference as shown by some research.
Each camp has its personal effectively-founded justification. In the finish, a sustainable policy resolution would have to be based on the right balancing of elements of equity and respect for rights of current players with the need to have for progress via adoption of new technologies. There need to have not, and should really not, be any disruptions or disturbance of current legal occupants and their clients. Peaceful coexistence of all is the objective, and taking the cue from the US FCC, there could be healthier discussions to figure out an acceptable way forward via provision of appropriate incentives. The government could effectively declare, like Marlon Brando in The Godfather: “I’m going to make them an offer they can’t refuse!”
(Research inputs by Debashish Bhattacharya.)
The author is honorary fellow of the IET (London) and founder & CEO of Advisory@TVR. Views are private