With ever-increasing demand for spectrum in fixed services, FWCC has endorsed opening up the 42GHz band as a new global standard for microwave backhaul. (Photo credit: Miguel Ferrando via Wikipedia)
An ever-increasing demand for spectrum has recently turned focus on the 42GHz band. Initially opened in some European countries following the development of ECC REC(01)04, the recently published ECC Report 173 states 12 countries have opened this band including Germany, Norway, Poland, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. In the U.K., this band was part of a wider auction of fixed service bands in 2010, with three operators being granted blocks of spectrum in the 42GHz band as a result.
Building on this growth there is a move to make this band global and earlier this year saw the publication of ITU-R Rec F.2005, which in effect promoted the aforementioned CEPT recommendation to global status. Aviat Networks has been lobbying key regulators to open this band. We are eagerly awaiting a consultation from Canada and responses have already been submitted to recent consultations from France and Ireland containing considerations regarding opening this band. The process is also underway in Finland and Sweden to open up this band. Recently our attention has turned to the United States and whether the FCC will open this band for use by the fixed service.
Back in autumn 2011, Aviat Networks raised this topic within the FWCC (Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition) as the first stage of a petition of rulemaking to the FCC. At first there was only a lukewarm reception to our idea as there was concern that the FCC would refuse the request out-of-hand as some previously released spectrum below 40 GHz is underutilized and, therefore, why is more needed? We pointed out that much of this spectrum (e.g., 39 GHz) was block-allocated by auction and thus has not been readily available to all users and that the licensees have underutilized the spectrum. There is a growing need for spectrum that can be licensed on a flexible, site-by-site basis, and this is reflected by the fact that there are no underutilization issues in bands such as 18 and 23 GHz, which are licensed in this manner. It is no coincidence that auctioned bands tend to underperform in terms of efficiency and utilization. So, undeterred, we forged ahead and this resulted in the production of a FWCC petition to the FCC in May 2012. The FCC has recently placed this petition on public notice, per its procedures. This is a great success for Aviat Networks and our commitment to seeking more spectrum for the fixed service, but the story has not ended here as can be seen from a recent blog entry from the FWCC.
Aviat Networks will continue work with the FWCC to ensure that the FCC gives this proposal full consideration and, having learned important lessons from past spectrum allocations, we will lobby for a flexible approach to the licensing model.
By now, you have seen the blogs, read the tweets and perhaps watched a YouTube video about “4G” mobile networks. In these postings, various claims and counterclaims have been made for what really defines 4G wireless. Further down in the industry dialogue, debate has been swirling among the ITU, IEEE 802 and various telecom analysts and pundits about what constitutes 4G. The technical acronyms LTE, WiMAX, HSPA+ and perhaps others have floated through the ether, creating more confusion than clarity.
All this happened when ITU let the genie out of the bottle in late 2010 and loosened the technical definition of what is truly 4G. The answer had been mobile technology capable of 100 Mbps+ downloads. However, ITU seems to have given mobile operators and others with vested interests enough leeway to define 4G as any mobile broadband technology that is faster than “3G,” which enjoyed a similar hype and uncertainty when it debuted in the early 2000s. And so began the public’s conditioning to equate more Gs with faster throughput.
Of course, all these Gs only refer to the generation of mobile technology, currently in its third generation in most places, with some limited availability of fourth generation technology. For the record, 4G technology in ITU’s strictest sense only refers to Long Term Evolution (LTE) Advanced and WiMAX 802.16m. Even current LTE and WiMAX 16e installations do not qualify. They are evolutionary steps on the road to 4G. And though HSPA+ is a fast download technology, it is still a third generation mobile telecom technology. Still, some HSPA+ carriers are achieving 21 Mbps downloads—faster than the 12 Mbps of early LTE carriers. With a software upgrade by the end of 2011, HSPA+ carriers can conceivably get up to 42 Mbps—but that is the theoretical maximum. Someday, LTE operators could hypothetically top out at 300 Mbps, but that day is not in the immediate future.
What is immediately apparent and most important is what 4G means to the end user. Most people cannot be bothered to dive into the technical details of mobile broadband technology, even if they are capable of grasping its intricacies. What they can grasp is faster mobile video loads with a minimum of latency and lack of jitter. What they can get is the mobile Internet displaying web pages with images in place and not red Xs or empty pictureholders. What is important is delivering content to the end user—wherever she is—faster than she expects, however many Gs it takes….