WISPs want clarity on 3.6 Ghz allocation

clohamon

The submissions to ComReg's Call-for-Input on regulatory issues related to the National Broadband Plan (NBP) brought a lot of complaints from WISPs about being denied the certainty of spectrum availability which they need to invest in NGA services.

They believe ComReg has denied them the ability to defend their business interests from being extinguished by the NBP

Imagine believe they are a special case and have sought an executive order from ComReg to by-pass the normal allocation procedures.

http://www.comreg.ie/publications/national_broadband_plan__call_for_input_on_regulatory_implications_-_submissions.

watty

Imagine are a special case, but not in the way they like to imagine.

rob808

Imagine are terrible company I was with them before they weren't great so cancel there broadband and pay what I own them they call me up 3 week later saying I own them more so pay them again never would deal with them again.

I hope comreg don't listen to them and they get no part in the NBP.

clohamon

watty wrote: »

Imagine are a special case, but not in the way they like to imagine.

Their submission (47 pages) to the second Map consultation asserts favouritism towards wired solutions. They suggest that a biased process risks legal proceedings.

As a general view, it is clear that the Preliminary Views expressed herein demonstrate a clear bias in favour of wired technologies and an active bias against qualifying radio technologies

Any suggestion of discriminatory practice or non-conformity with the SAG conditions risks exposing DCENR to challenge, difficulty in securing approval from Brussels or funding. All of these pose a schedule risk to the NBP with associated negative impact on the Irish Economy.

clohamon

ComReg respond to submissions to call for input on NBP.

The timescale indicated would seem to leave the allocation of spectrum until after the forecast NBP tender window.

122 That being said, ComReg remains conscious of the expiry of existing 3.6 GHz licences in July 2017 and the request that clarity on the future of the 3.6 GHz band be provided as far as possible in advance of this date. Accordingly, it is ComReg’s current intention, noting the points made above, to issue its response to the 3.6 GHz consultation and further information on next steps by end of year.

http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg1557.pdf

rob808

clohamon wrote: »

ComReg respond to submissions to call for input on NBP.

The timescale indicated would seem to leave the allocation of spectrum until after the forecast NBP tender window.



http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg1557.pdf

That most likely mean it mainly between Eircom and siro for the NBP.

oscarBravo

clohamon wrote: »

ComReg respond to submissions to call for input on NBP.

The timescale indicated would seem to leave the allocation of spectrum until after the forecast NBP tender window.

Meh. You can't build future-proofed broadband infrastructure on wireless anyway. If DCENR are serious about the goals of NBP, there won't be any wireless component to it.

clohamon

oscarBravo wrote: »

Meh. You can't build future-proofed broadband infrastructure on wireless anyway. If DCENR are serious about the goals of NBP, there won't be any wireless component to it.

Agree, but if they want to proof the NBP against legal attack they shouldn’t be playing hide and seek with the spectrum.

The Minister can just direct the use of specific bands. If he tells the Regulator to hold that band available for any wireless winner of the NBP it would probably satisfy everybody.

Better to specify what they actually want with performance criteria. eg 150Mb/s symmetric.

oscarBravo

clohamon wrote: »

The Minister can just direct the use of specific bands.

Can he? Isn't spectrum allocation ComReg's competence, and aren't they supposed to be independent?

If he tells the Regulator to hold that band available for any wireless winner of the NBP it would probably satisfy everybody.

If he does that, he's explicitly permitting wireless to be considered next-generation infrastructure. If the minister told ComReg to ringfence 3.6 for NBP and DCENR didn't allow for wireless to be used, the band would become unusable. If DCENR do allow for wireless, they'll be entrenching the digital divide instead of taking this last opportunity to get rid of it.

Better to specify what they actually want with performance criteria. eg 150Mb/s symmetric.

That would pretty much turn the whole map orange again. I don't see it happening.

If there's going to be a wireless component to NBP, it has to be explicitly short-range, explicitly fibre to a single wireless last-mile hop, and explicitly interim.

clohamon

oscarBravo wrote: »

Can he? Isn't spectrum allocation ComReg's competence, and aren't they supposed to be independent?

Section 13 Communications regulation Act 2002

(5) A direction under subsection (1) relating to management of the radio frequency spectrum may include directions relating to—
(a) the allocation of particular bands of spectrum for specific categories of service, and
(b) the means by which entitlements to use such spectrum may be assigned (including appropriate fees),
and in giving such direction the Minister shall have regard to principles of good frequency management.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If he does that, he's explicitly permitting wireless to be considered next-generation infrastructure.

He has to, and he has. Its in the State Aid Guidelines, but subjective criteria apply to the exact implementation of wireless solutions.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If the minister told ComReg to ringfence 3.6 for NBP and DCENR didn't allow for wireless to be used, the band would become unusable.

If no wireless provider won the tender, the band would revert to the Regulator for allocation as he sees fit.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If DCENR do allow for wireless, they'll be entrenching the digital divide instead of taking this last opportunity to get rid of it. That would pretty much turn the whole map orange again. I don't see it happening.

As far as I can see nearly all the blue bits are inside eircom's VDSL footprint. I don't quite know why they set the bar so low (30Mb/s). Maybe it's to do with funding from Europe.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If there's going to be a wireless component to NBP, it has to be explicitly short-range, explicitly fibre to a single wireless last-mile hop, and explicitly interim.

Agree, but nothing at all will be going on if it's held up in court because of perceived bias.

watty

clohamon wrote: »

As far as I can see nearly all the blue bits are inside eircom's VDSL footprint. I don't quite know why they set the bar so low (30Mb/s).

To extend the range that VDSL can be used to. Its speed drops very quickly indeed with distance.
But even 30 Mb/s isn't very far. 60Mb/s is maybe 1/4 the wire length.

Phone wire is not only only Cat3, compared to Cat5e usually used to get 100m 100Mbps, which uses separate pairs for TX and RX (1Gbps uses all four pairs, each at 250 Mb/s, and echo cancellation to do duplex) but also there is far more crosstalk if a fat multipair cable. So 100 Mbps VDSL barely does 100m in the real world. Unlike Cat5e, the Cat 3 cable was never intended for more than telephone quality voice.

clohamon

There's a piece in today’s The Sunday Business Post (paywall) quoting John McDonnell CEO of Ripplecom

[McDonnell] argued that the new service [govt 30Mb/s scheme] could be significantly more expensive than rural customers already pay and cast doubt on how quickly the plan would be rolled out

“Our view and the view of the people who are working in the market, is that with the geographic scale it’s more like an eight-year project than a three-year project”

“delivering fibre broadband as planned by the government is neither viable economically, nor is it necessary”

watty

Well, he would say that.
Much as I support and endorse Fixed wireless for Broadband*, it can only in the future be for one to a handful of isolated people per fibre fed mast. Fibre is actually cheaper. About 1/10th the infrastructure cost of real 30 Mbits wireless, but x10 speed minimum.

Wireless is now a last resort tech for a farm on a mountainside with no ESB.

(*In the past vs Mobile, which can't ever deliver Broadband except we had x10 or x20 as many masts, which won't happen. Why are they STILL allowed to subsidise data packages by voice and SMS and mis-sell it as Broadband?
Since about 2007 the company with best Fixed Wireless data has been investing in fibre and pretty much halted Wireless rollouts from end of 2008 and continued with Fibre acquisitions.)

funnyname

clohamon wrote: »

There's a piece in today’s The Sunday Business Post (paywall) quoting John McDonnell CEO of Ripplecom

Luddites

clohamon

It looks like 160 Mhz of the 3.6 Ghz band might be available for FWA after 2017.

This figure comes from taking the 360 MHz indicated to be available for use from ComReg doc 14/101 (para 3.29) and deducting the 200 Mhz assumed by Frontier Economics to be available for mobile use after 2017 (see ComReg 1562b para 2.1.3 Table 1).

Whether any of it will be available for regional use seems doubtful.

"However, for the purposes of this chapter 3, ComReg assumes that any rights of use in the 3.6 GHz band included in this award process will be made available on a national basis.” - ComReg 14/101 para 3.30

rob808

clohamon wrote: »

It looks like 160 Mhz of the 3.6 Ghz band might be available for FWA after 2017.

This figure comes from taking the 360 MHz indicated to be available for use from ComReg doc 14/101 (para 3.29) and deducting the 200 Mhz assumed by Frontier Economics to be available for mobile use after 2017 (see ComReg 1562b para 2.1.3 Table 1).

Whether any of it will be available for regional use seems doubtful.

That good couldn't see FWA being able to give 30mb at all times of day and looking at ripplecom broadband the price it is and download allowance being so small won't like them to win the tender.

ItHurtsWhenIP

rob808 wrote: »

That good couldn't see FWA being able to give 30mb at all times of day and looking at ripplecom broadband the price it is and download allowance being so small won't like them to win the tender.

That got me thinking - does the NBP have any stipulation around data allowances?

clohamon

MMFITWGDV wrote: »

That got me thinking - does the NBP have any stipulation around data allowances?

No, though there is a final DCENR consultation due this month (July)

The questions put so far are mostly about the capability of the infrastructure, not the retail package that one might chose to buy.

clohamon

MMFITWGDV wrote: »

That got me thinking - does the NBP have any stipulation around data allowances?

No, though there is a final DCENR consultation due this month.

The questions discussed so far are mostly about the capability of the infrastructure, not the retail package that one might chose to buy.

The current USO does not cover broadband or data allowances and is unlikely to change before 2020.

rob808

clohamon wrote: »

No, though there is a final DCENR consultation due this month.

The questions discussed so far are mostly about the capability of the infrastructure, not the retail package that one might chose to buy.

The current USO does not cover broadband or data allowances and is unlikely to change before 2020.

This why I hope Eircom win the tender at least it be a open network plus it be future proof with FTTH and with some people getting LTE with fibre to the mast so they would be following EU rule not using one technology.

clohamon

ComReg has set out its preferred conditions in this doc. Respondents have until 7th August 2015 to reply. After that Comreg will publish the draft licences and the auction will take place before the end of the year. Summary below. The underlying assumption is that interested parties will be FWA providers.

Allocation: 350 Mhz in 9 areas
Band Plan: TDD
Licence duration: 15 years
Allocation type: Combinatorial Clock Auction.
Spectrum cap: 150 - 250 Mhz (Max per licence)
Blocksize: 65 x 5 Mhz blocks and 1 x 25 Mhz block

Areas: separated into 9 areas with stated populations (adjusted for commuting).

• Five Cities and their suburbs: Dublin, Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterfrd
• North West: Counties Donegal, Leitrim, Sligo, Mayo, Roscommon and Galway excluding the Galway CSO City and Suburb region.
• North East: Counties Cavan, Monaghan, Louth, Longford, Westmeath, Meath, Offaly, Laois, Kildare, Wicklow and Dublin excluding Dublin CSO City and Suburb region.
• South East: Counties Kilkenny, Carlow, Wexford, the legal boundary of South Tipperary and Waterford, excluding Waterford City and Suburbs
• South West: Counties, Clare, Limerick excluding Limerick CSO City and Suburbs, Kerry and Cork excluding Cork CSO city and Suburbs and the legal boundary for North Tipperary.

Minimum Price: €0.015 - € 0.025 /Mhz/cap (lower price for rural areas, higher for cities)*
SAF/SUF split: 50/50
Technology: Neutral but min throughput of 4bps/Hz required (suggested LTE-A)
Coverage: (proposed)

Minimum number of base stations required to deploy in a licence area. (having regard to current deployment and necessary spread of deployment)
4 non-urban regions: 15 to 25. (Min 3-5 counties to be covered within a region)
Urban areas (excl Dublin): 2 to 4
Dublin: 15-25
Base stations may be mandated in a number of distinct areas within the licensed area.

Roll-out: 3-5 years starting 1/08/2017
QOS: as for Mobiles. MBSA licence conditions will apply if a voice service is to be delivered.

http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg1570.pdf

watty

Idiotic

rob808

clohamon wrote: »

ComReg has set out its preferred conditions in this doc. Respondents have until 7th August 2015 to reply. After that Comreg will publish the draft licences and the auction will take place before the end of the year. Summary below. The underlying assumption is that interested parties will be FWA providers.

Allocation: 350 Mhz in 9 areas
Band Plan: TDD
Licence duration: 15 years
Allocation type: Combinatorial Clock Auction.
Spectrum cap: 150 - 250 Mhz (Max per licence)
Blocksize: 65 x 5 Mhz blocks and 1 x 25 Mhz block

Areas: separated into 9 areas with stated populations (adjusted for commuting).

• Five Cities and their suburbs: Dublin, Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterfrd
• North West: Counties Donegal, Leitrim, Sligo, Mayo, Roscommon and Galway excluding the Galway CSO City and Suburb region.
• North East: Counties Cavan, Monaghan, Louth, Longford, Westmeath, Meath, Offaly, Laois, Kildare, Wicklow and Dublin excluding Dublin CSO City and Suburb region.
• South East: Counties Kilkenny, Carlow, Wexford, the legal boundary of South Tipperary and Waterford, excluding Waterford City and Suburbs
• South West: Counties, Clare, Limerick excluding Limerick CSO City and Suburbs, Kerry and Cork excluding Cork CSO city and Suburbs and the legal boundary for North Tipperary.

Minimum Price: €0.015 - € 0.025 /Mhz/cap (lower price for rural areas, higher for cities)*
SAF/SUF split: 50/50
Technology: Neutral but min throughput of 4bps/Hz required (suggested LTE-A)
Coverage: (proposed)

Minimum number of base stations required to deploy in a licence area. (having regard to current deployment and necessary spread of deployment)
4 non-urban regions: 15 to 25. (Min 3-5 counties to be covered within a region)
Urban areas (excl Dublin): 2 to 4
Dublin: 15-25
Base stations may be mandated in a number of distinct areas within the licensed area.

Roll-out: 3-5 years starting 1/08/2017
QOS: as for Mobiles. MBSA licence conditions will apply if a voice service is to be delivered.

http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg1570.pdf

What the realistic speed will wisp be able to deliver with 3.6Ghz.

clohamon

The coverage analysis is done in this doc.
http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg1575.pdf

There’s lots of scenarios but just taking rural Donegal (excluding Letterkeny, Donegal Town and Buncrana.) Total population 47,000. Households 17,000. Area 4860 kmsq

Case 1:
All households having access to un-contended 30Mb/s:
Base stations needed: 294
Spectrum needed: 300 Mhz (ie nearly all of the allocation)

Case 2:
4% of households having access to 30Mb/s at 8:1 contention
Base stations needed: 6
Spectrum needed: 60Mhz

Case 3:
50% of households having access to 30Mb/s at 8:1 contention
Base stations needed: 56
Spectrum Needed: 100 Mhz

NB:
Fibre backhaul issues are not considered
Line of Sight issues are not considered at all in case 1 and 2.

The doc appears to suggest that Case 3 is do-able because an existing Mobile would be able to, do it itself or, make its base stations available to a WISP. Additionally the 50% take-up was seen as possible because broadband is otherwise so bad in Donegal at the moment.

However the option of just doing rural Donegal doesn’t seem to be available. Instead a WISP would have to purchase a licence for “the North West”, pay the price for the entire region and then build a business case on the basis of wildly different demographics and markets within the region.


The minimum cost for "the North West" using 100Mhz for 15 years would be 100Mhz x 608,768 (pop) x €0.015/Mhz/pop (SAF+SUF) = €913,152

So its seems 30Mb/s is technically possible but given the structure of the licenses it’s not likely.

watty

Those numbers of bases vs spectrum vs capacity don't sound quite right. But I haven't done the sums. It depends too on the Subscriber's aerial gain.

You also have to consider terrain, which usually means more base stations needed.

clohamon

watty wrote: »

Those numbers of bases vs spectrum vs capacity don't sound right.

Have a look at the doc. Its not very long.
http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg1575.pdf

bk

The question here would be how much each base station would cost?

I've heard a rough estimate that a LTE site (including planning, site rental, gear, electricity, etc.) costs about €150,000

So you are looking at:
150000 × 56 = €8.4 million

To put that in perspective that would be about €1000 per house serviced.

You would be well on your way to serving most of those homes with FTTH for €1000 per home, especially when you consider the much lower ongoing operating and maintenance costs.

clohamon

bk wrote: »

The question here would be how much each base station would cost?

I think the inference is that a WISP would install its gear on an existing MNO tower network and just pay rent. Or alternatively an MNO would bid for the spectrum and install the FWA gear on its own towers.

bk

clohamon wrote: »

I think the inference is that a WISP would install its gear on an existing MNO tower network and just pay rent. Or alternatively an MNO would bid for the spectrum and install the FWA gear on its own towers.

But are there 56 LTE towers in Donegal? There certainly isn't 294

And even at that, you still would have high ongoing property rental and electricity costs.

bk

bk wrote: »

But are there 56 LTE towers in Donegal? There certainly isn't 294

And even at that, you still would have high ongoing property rental and electricity costs.

Answering my own question. According to the Comreg site there seems to be roughly 284 total in Donegal amongst all operators.

Though many seem to be GSM only (so no fiber backhaul at the moment) and many also seem to have all three operators on one site.

So I'd guess there are roughly 100 unique sites.

clohamon

bk wrote: »

But are there 56 LTE towers in Donegal? There certainly isn't 294

And even at that, you still would have high ongoing property rental and electricity costs.

This is from the consultant's report

ComReg‟s Siteviewer tool indicates a total of 224 mobile base stations in rural Donegal, equivalent to 56 per operator. Since it is likely that mobile infrastructure is more coverage than capacity driven in such a sparsely populated area, this suggests that a fixed wireless network configured to deliver coverage to all of the populated areas of Donegal, having access to 100 MHz of spectrum and sufficient fibre backhaul capacity would be capable of serving up to half the population with a high speed broadband service.

On the actual business case, we'd probably need to hear from a WISP. ComReg don't usually leave much money on the table.

rob808

bk wrote: »

Answering my own question. According to the Comreg site there seems to be roughly 284 total in Donegal amongst all operators.

Though many seem to be GSM only (so no fiber backhaul at the moment) and many also seem to have all three operators on one site.

So I'd guess there are roughly 100 unique sites.

I can't see wisp being able offering 30mb and 6mb upload at affordable price to that of urban areas and the download allowance.I think if wisp did win it gona end up costing lot more since this network suppose to last 20 years plus being able to go higher than the 30mb can wisp even be able to do that?.I wonder what the cost be for 20 years with rent of the sites and electricity and the Spectrum.

bk

rob808 wrote: »

I can't see wisp being able offering 30mb and 6mb upload at affordable price to that of urban areas and the download allowance.I think if wisp did win it gona end up costing lot more since this network suppose to last 20 years plus being able to go higher than the 30mb can wisp even be able to do that?.I wonder what the cost be for 20 years with rent of the sites and electricity and the Spectrum.

Yes, from what clohamon is saying above, I don't think the business case for this is all that clear versus FTTH.

In order to even reach the 30Mb/s minimum, then it looks like a WISP would need to do a deal with all 3 mobile networks!!!

While this maybe less then €150,000 per site, I still don't see any mobile network not charging a WISP big money to access their masts.

Specially when you consider that two of the mobile networks are likely going to be competing with the WISPs for the NBP contracts. I just can't see Eircom/Meteor or Vodafone/SIRO giving favourable rates to a wisp to use their masts. Why would they help a competitor like that?

Only Three(o2) might be interested in helping, but then on their own they are unlikely to have sufficient coverage or sites.

What I see more likely to happen is for Eircom/Meteor and Vodafone/SIRO will bid for these FWA licenses. They will largely use FTTH, but for the most extreme cases they just might throw some FWA on their Meteor and Vodafone masts to reach them.

I don't see the WISPs winning much if any of the NBP money. They simply don't have the networks and scale for what is being proposed.

My only concern is making sure as little FWA is used by WISPs/Eircom/Siro as humanly possible and as much FTTH.

bk

Also if Comregs use case only results in 50% coverage of rural Donegal, then how does that help the NBP? The goal of which is 100% coverage of rural Ireland.

clohamon

bk wrote: »

Also if Comregs use case only results in 50% coverage of rural Donegal, then how does that help the NBP? The goal of which is 100% coverage of rural Ireland.

Making the spectrum available avoids the State facing litigation from the WISPs vis. the destruction of their livelihoods, because it technically allows them to continue in business and meet the requirements of the NBP (backhaul permitting).

The 50% refers to take-up (market penetration). If the other 50 % are capable of being reached, they also are covered and excluded from the NBP intervention (ie turn blue on the map)

rob808

clohamon wrote: »

Making the spectrum available avoids the State facing litigation from the WISPs vis. the destruction of their livelihoods, because it technically allows them to continue in business and meet the requirements of the NBP (backhaul permitting).

The 50% refers to take-up (market penetration). If the other 50 % are capable of being reached, they also are covered and excluded from the NBP intervention (ie turn blue on the map)

The goverment making it possible so that if we end up getting FTTH Wisp will be able to access it at fair prices so they can't use that the NBP destroying there livelihood.They can become fibre resellers.

clohamon

rob808 wrote: »

The goverment making it possible so that if we end up getting FTTH Wisp will be able to access it at fair prices so they can't use that the NBP destroying there livelihood.They can become fibre resellers.

The current 3.6Ghz licences end in July 2017. The NBP may not arrive in remote places until 2022 or later.


*Speculation*
It would be possible to take a punt on a licence, use it for FWA until the FTTH came, and then lease it to a MNO for use as small cell capacity(nomadic presumably) for the last, say, 12 years of the 15 year licence. It's expected that mobile equipment in that band will be available by 2020 so the MNOs might pay good money.

bk

clohamon wrote: »

The current 3.6Ghz licences end in July 2017. The NBP may not arrive in remote places until 2022 or later.


*Speculation*
It would be possible to take a punt on a licence, use it for FWA until the FTTH came, and then lease it to a MNO for use as small cell capacity(nomadic presumably) for the last, say, 12 years of the 15 year licence. It's expected that mobile equipment in that band will be available by 2020 so the MNOs might pay good money.

I think that would be a very bad and risky investment strategy.

First of all your assumption of 2022 is far off. The NBP will start in 2017 and it is likely it will advance very quickly with many rural areas getting it soon after.

watty

3.6GHz is totally rubbish for Nomadic / Mobile except for Café femto cells or similar. It's only any use with roof top aerials.

clohamon

watty wrote: »

3.6GHz is totally rubbish for Nomadic / Mobile except for Café femto cells or similar. It's only any use with roof top aerials.

Let's be fair, I didn't mention mobile use.

Anyway here's what ComReg say..(though it reads a bit like a sales pitch)

As also noted in Document 14/101, the limited coverage range of cells operating at higher frequencies such as the 2.6 and 3.6 GHz bands makes these bands more suitable for deployment in high demand areas such as shopping centres, railway stations and airports, where large numbers of users congregate and require access to a localised capacity site. In fact, the large bandwidth available at these higher frequency bands makes them especially suitable for this purpose.

http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg1570.pdf p.33

watty

Expensive "revenue raising for Comreg" alternative to WiFi Hotspots. Mobile Femto Hotspots with slightly worse coverage.

Some_Person

Most WISPs have their infrastructure on existing buildings so costs for deploying bases that way are very low (assuming unlicensed frequencies which most use)
I think the average large WISPs (over 3000 customers) revenue would be around 250,000K per year.

€150,000 is an insane amount of money per site and would only be in the realm of large mobile operators.

bk

Some_Person wrote: »

Most WISPs have their infrastructure on existing buildings so costs for deploying bases that way are very low (assuming unlicensed frequencies which most use)
I think the average large WISPs (over 3000 customers) revenue would be around 250,000K per year.

The point is that in order to reach a minimum of 30Mb/s at peak times as it looks like will be required in order to compete for the NBP, the wisps would require a far greater density of sites then they currently have.

In fact it looks like they would need as many sites as the mobile networks have.

rob808

http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/comreg-eyes-30m-broadband-spectrum-windfall-31407768.html

cgarvey

Headline says it all, as per Watty's assertion.

watty

To "regulators" better means "more revenue". The old idea of experts in communications advising ITU and National Governments then PROTECTING spectrum for a long time for the best uses is gone.
It means too that investments in services and infrastructure for anyone other than mobile operators is likely to become worthless.

The 800MHz sell off from TV (The Digital Dividend purely for Treasuries) was bad enough to cripple UHF Terrestrial (envisaged when there was no HD, never mind "3D" or 4K TV etc) but the 700MHz sell off is pure regulator greed. It's going to do almost nothing for consumers and even the 800MHz simply lets Mobile have fewer 900MHz and 1800MHz in rural, ultimately to save money, not any significant better service once an economic number of subscribers are on it.

It's fact that Comreg and Ofcom want us to ONLY have Cable and Satellite (they'd be happy if pay TV only) and sell the rest of Terrestrial TV band.

Ironically then the Mobile companies would use part of their spectrum for Broadcast, (as no Internet based system scales for live video), but it would be lower bitrate, lower quality, only on phones and Tablets and be entirely Pay TV. Even the RTE etc (or BBC in UK).

Mobile operators should not be allowed to re-allocate part of their spectrum as broadcast* to compete with Sky & UPC. It's a misuse of spectrum and distortion of market. But Ofcom and Comreg will support it as it will give them more licence revenue and Gov more VAT from Subscribers than Traditional TV broadcasting.

[* There are 3G and 4G specs for this, a poor quality expensive to run alternative to DVB-T and DVB-T2, but offers lock in Pay TV subs.]

bk

watty wrote: »

It's fact that Comreg and Ofcom want us to ONLY have Cable and Satellite (they'd be happy if pay TV only) and sell the rest of Terrestrial TV band.

And in fairness I think the regulators are absolutely right on this.

The reality is the general trend, in particular for young people, is that they couldn't care less about linear, add supported, broadcast TV. They just don't want it or have any interest in it. They want on demand video, when they want it and where they want it.

No one has the time or patient any more to sit around and wait for Friends at 9:30 on a Tuesday night! And I personally think it is a good thing that we are no longer slaves to our TV's any more, but that is beside the point.

Given this new reality, it would be a complete waste of valuable spectrum to spend it on 4k, 3d, etc. broadcast TV. Much better to spend it on mobile data, so they can actually give people what they want, on demand video from services like youtube, netflix, BBC/RTE player, etc.

It isn't the case that they only want us to have cable and satellite (and don't forget the emergence of IPTV), it is more that these services simply don't interfere with any other competing service, so there is no need to pick one over the other or limit them.

Personally the ideal scenario we should be aiming for is that every home in Ireland has a high quality wired broadband connection, preferably FTTH and that it powers high quality wifi.

Then wireless spectrum can almost completely given over to use for mobile data and actually used in the mobile context and not for carrying inadequate FWA and even TV services which are better delivered by a fixed connection.

Eventually music, video (radio/TV) will just be another IP service delivered over data networks, both fixed and mobile.

I agree with a lot of things you say watty, but in this case I think Comreg are largely right.

oscarBravo

bk wrote: »

It isn't the case that they only want us to have cable and satellite (and don't forget the emergence of IPTV)...

IPTV isn't really comparable to DVB-x TV platforms. It's a horribly, horribly inefficient way to deliver broadcast TV - and there still is a market for broadcast TV, despite the growth of on-demand streaming.

Yes, you can use multicast to deal with some of the inefficiencies of trying to use IPTV as a broadcast medium, but (a) it's complex and fragile, and (b) it doesn't work worth a damn on any wireless platform.

The Cush

Broadcast TV in the UHF band will be guaranteed to 2030 or even beyond but connected and converged are the keywords for the future and while the mobile tech we have today doesn't cut it for broadcast a lot can happen in 15 years.

Hi-power/Hi-tower LTE-A+ broadcast trials are already happening, sharing the same UHF channel with broadcast TV. By 2030 could 6G technology be in development?

watty

mobile tech we have today doesn't cut it for broadcast

It can today, the solution exists, but it will be pay TV only. It's actually just poorer bit rate* broadcast in the Mobile spectrum with worse geographic coverage.

This is the future Comreg and Ofcom are aiming for and it will BE FOREVER poorer quality, poorer coverage and Subscription only at Sky / UPC pricing. TV & Radio broadcast terrestrially should never become a service owned by the Mobile operators.

For terrestrial and Free to air there is NOTHING EVER better than the Radio and TV infrastructure we have, other than new coding schemes for newer content types. (e.g. MPEG4 instead of MPEG2 for UK, or something new for ultra HD with real 3D)

Don't say I didn't warn you when you or your children can only get decent TV via Sky or UPC, or feed phone / tablet with a subscription broadcast addon to have a lower quality picture on a 42" screen than DVB-T today.

Broadcast TV in the UHF band will be guaranteed to 2030

No, it's not, only in tinier parts or shared. Anyway 15 years is pathetic.

[* Like DAB, out of greed to fit more channels. Already due to saving money Terrestrial SD is poorer than perfect PAL reception before Widescreen and Terrestrial HD only 1440 not 1920, we should have a 3rd multiplex and same quality Satellite used to have, UK satellite has been reduced to match Terrestrial in many cases.]

The Cush

watty wrote: »

No, it's not

It will be.

The Pascal Lamy report, commissioned by the EC, has proposed the 2020-2030-2025 plan.

The plan proposes that
- by 2020 (+/- 2 years) broadcasting is cleared from the 700MHz band
- until 2030 broadcasting is protected in the remainder of the UHF band
- by 2025 a review of the UHF band be carried out to assess technology and market developments.

The has been welcomed by both the EBU and broadcasters but would like to see the 2030 date extended further. The mobile lobby would like to see the 2025 review carried out as early as 2022.