Freedom4 application for licence variation - Statement

Statement published 06|10|09

Executive summary

1.1 This document sets out Ofcom's decision on the request from Freedom4 Limited ('Freedom4') to vary its Wireless Telegraphy Public Fixed Wireless Operator 3.6 to 4.2 GHz licence (the 'Freedom4 licence') in two ways:

• to increase the central station maximum power; and
• to remove the requirement to coordinate low-power terminals and allow them to be used for providing mobile services.

Consultation on Freedom4's application for licence variation

1.2 On 9 June 2009 we published a consultation document (the 'consultation') assessing Freedom4's request and seeking comments from stakeholders on the issues raised.

1.3 The main points of our assessment were:

• the Freedom4 licence did not limit the technologies it may use but did limit the applications to fixed use only;
• there appeared to be no reason to refuse the variation of the Freedom4 licence to remove the limitation to fixed applications;
• it would be appropriate to increase the maximum in-band power level to +23 dBW/MHz (53 dBm/MHz) for central stations and to remove the absolute limit of +22 dBW/MHz (eirp);
• coordination should not be necessary for terminal stations with a spectral density not exceeding 25 dBm/MHz and total eirp not exceeding 30 dBm unless a proposed central station was within 100 MHz and 2km of a point-to-point link; and
• we noted Freedom4's preference not to vary the out of block emission limits in its current licence and considered that by maintaining the current block edge mask there was no change in the interference environment for adjacent services. However, with the introduction of mobile terminals there was a need to ensure sufficient separation in frequency from adjacent services. We proposed terminal station out of block emission limits to achieve this.

1.4 Our initial view was that subject to the outcome of the consultation the variation should be made as soon as practicable. We asked for written views and comments on the issues raised in the consultation to be made by 20 July 2009.

Responses to the consultation

1.5 We received 15 responses, one of which was submitted on a confidential basis and one which had a confidential annex.

1.6 The majority of responses (nine) were from various organisations within the satellite community. All objected to the variation request. They were primarily concerned about the adequacy of the coordination arrangements, particularly in respect of mobile terminals. Some noted that the technical conditions in European Commission Decision 2008/411/EC (the 'Decision') extend only up to 3.8 GHz.

1.7 T-Mobile and one confidential respondent opposed the variation for a variety of reasons, making the point that the variation should not be made before we had clarified the position on the liberalisation of conditions in 2G and 3G licences. Another mobile network operator O2 supported the proposal to vary the licence, and it noted possible parallels for our consultation on the application of liberalisation to the mobile sector.

1.8 Samsung Electronics supported the proposal to vary the licence. BT had no objection in principle to the variation subject to our clarifying some points. It noted also that a subsequent review of Administered Incentive Pricing after the Strategic Review of Spectrum Pricing consultation (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/radiocomms/ifi/srsp/) should include other users in the bands.

1.9 UK Broadband supported our granting the variation request. It also said that to avoid discrimination all licences in the 3.4 to 3.8 GHz band should have similar licence conditions.

Ofcom's decision

1.10 We have carefully considered all responses received. The main conclusions of our consideration are that if the proposed variation were made:

• consumers could benefit from the increased choice and competition that would follow from Freedom4's ability to offer a wider variety of services and Freedom4 would be able to make better use of the spectrum in responding to new consumer demands;
• competition in the mobile communications market is unlikely to be distorted and competition in the provision of broadband data services is likely to be enhanced;
• there would be no disproportionate reduction in the spectrum quality of adjacent users under the coordination procedure, i.e. Fixed Services (FS) and Fixed Satellite Services (FSS) in the 3.6 to 4.2 GHz band; and
• the variation would be consistent with the European harmonisation of the 3.4 to 3.8 GHz bands for broadband wireless services in the Decision.

1.11 We consider that the continuation of the restriction on mobile use in the Freedom4 licence is not justified and our assessment of responses suggests that there are no compelling reasons not to vary the licence as proposed in the consultation. We have therefore decided to vary the Freedom4 licence as proposed. As soon as practicable we will issue a revised licence to Freedom4.

Matters covered in this document

1.12 This document is structured as follows

• Section 2 summarises the main features of the Freedom4 licence and its licence variation request, our assessment of its request in the consultation and the responses to the consultation.
• Section 3 considers the major issues that different parties raised in responses to the consultation. In relation to each issue we summarise the responses and set out our analysis and conclusion.
• Section 4 sets out our decision on the Freedom4 licence variation request.
• Annex 1 lists the names of all non-confidential respondents.
• Annex 2 sets out our assessment of other significant responses.