Review of the Radiocommunications Act 1989: Interference Management Workshop Brief - Comments | MBIE 15 July 2015
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Review of the Radiocommunications Act 1989: Interference Management Workshop Brief Comments | MBIE 15 July 2015
Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 Interference management ..................................................................................................... 2 A common understanding of radio engineering approaches and parameters is a pre- requisite for change ........................................................................................................... 2 A technical document could set out common principles for ARE calculations .................... 4 When interference occurs ..................................................................................................... 5 Definition of harmful interference ....................................................................................... 6 Presumption that unwanted emissions causing harmful interference be removed by the emitter ............................................................................................................................... 6 Attachment: detailed comments on options ........................................................................... 9
Introduction
1. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Ministry’s workshop paper setting out options for
changes to interference management (workshop paper).
2. The workshop brief summarises options set out in submissions on the December 2014 discussion
paper. We understand that no submitter proposes changes to the underlying framework or
regulatory objectives - rather there are differing views relating to how these objectives are met.
3. Overall, we support an approach to the framework (i.e. Act and other documents) that continues
to anticipate that there will be interference while promoting good engineering practices, providing
for co-ordination between spectrum users to mitigate interference, and providing for dispute
resolution where co-ordination breaks down. The regulatory framework recognises the
importance of ARE assigned licences and the dichotomy of rights between spectrum owners /
managers and other users and between transmitters and receivers, and some options undermine
this framework.
4. We have used the following guiding principles in preparing our detailed comments
We support preparing a “technical document“ that sets out precise definitions of the
technical terms involved in sharing calculations and interference management (technical
document). The Act should refer to this “technical document” as a matter radio
engineers must have regard to;
Compliance with International Radio Regulations is understood. However, the IRR’s per
se do not provide specific guidance in interference calculations unless the scope of IRR’s
is extended to include relevant ITU Recommendations and Reports;
If the Ministry wishes to amend certain content of IRR’s including, Harmful Interference
then a second consultation may be required;
The onus of interference management lies equally with transmitters and receivers;
We propose that the impact of unwanted emissions can be succinctly quantified by a
threshold I/N ratio. Inter service co-ordination using I/N is extensively used by the ITU-R.
we also note that the maximum possible interference signal (MPIS) and threshold I/N
are two different but equivalent approaches and indeed one can be related to the other.
5. We support the Ministry’s cautious approach to amending rights and obligations under the
Act. Management Rights (MR) holders have paid significant amounts for spectrum, and some
options proposed by submitters have the potential to undermine that investment and further
investment in future spectrum and innovation.
6. Our detailed comments are set out in the attachment. More generally, the options identified by the
Ministry illustrate:
a. That the regulatory framework provides only very high level guidance for radio
engineering, i.e. that radio engineer (ARE) must have regard to International Radio
Regulations (IRR) which may also include relevant ITU-R reports and regulations. It
would be difficult, if not impossible, to impose specific additional obligations on AREs as
Radiocomms Act review Public Version 1suggested by some options without an agreed approach to radio engineer calculations
and parameters;
b. The important role of transmitters and receivers in mitigating service impacting
interference, so that spectrum can be efficiently used and new technologies deployed
over time. Therefore while transmitters should continue to transmit in their prescribed
limits of emissions, the receivers should also tune to emissions only their allocated band
and be able to function in the presence of adjacent channel interference whose value is
governed by the receiver ACS parameter. Some options would undermine existing
management rights, party’s incentives to collaborate when mitigating service impacting
interference and deployment of new technologies.
7. These general issues are discussed in more detail below.
Interference management
8. The Ministry notes in the workshop paper that, within the current regulatory regime, interference
management occurs through:
a. Prevention. The level of interference is optimised through the Ministry’s band planning
process, parameter setting in management rights and licenses, licence certification,
managing unwanted emissions and compliance with standards; and
b. Resolution. Implementing effective compliance and enforcement provisions, arbitration
processes and enforcing legal rights.
9. We agree that the regulatory framework should cover both these aspects of interference
management.
10. It is in the nature of radio transmission and reception that interference will always occur to some
extent. It would be inefficient to attempt to prohibit all interference (and impossible). To
implement measures that seek to stop interference would likely require a disproportionate amount
of effort and would result in less efficient and effective use of existing allocated bands and
technologies, and undermine deployment of new technologies and innovation.
11. The management rights framework recognises interference should be managed and facilitates
mitigating interference where it impacts on spectrum use, relying on band planning, radio
engineer licensing practices and dispute resolution to do this.
12. Accordingly, AREs are not tasked with preventing all interference, and assigned licenses seek to
deliver the efficient planned and expected outcome.
A common understanding of radio engineering approaches and parameters is a pre-
requisite for change
13. We are not aware of any concerns that radio engineers are in general undertaking calculations in
a manner that fails to deliver expected outcomes. Nonetheless, as spectrum becomes more
heavily used, there will be more scrutiny of radio engineering calculations and potential for
dispute. While ARE analysis will always require expertise and an element of judgement, there are
relevant common engineering and consideration principles that could provide consistency of
approach.
Radiocomms Act review Public Version 214. The Ministry is considering options that will govern more closely the way that AREs behave.
However, to implement these options requires, first, a common understanding of how radio
engineering calculations and parameters - a “common language”. However, the current
regulatory framework does not set out an agreed approach. It provides AREs only high level and,
in some cases peripheral, guidance. For example, AREs are required to consider:
a. International radio regulations (IRRs). However, IRRs are intended to address radio
spectrum issues between countries. In which case, if the Ministry does want to provide
AREs more guidance, IRRs do not form a suitable basis for issues faced by AREs;
b. Harmful interference relates to a possible interference outcomes rather than calculating
the interference implications of a proposal;
c. Terminologies used by the act - Adjacent frequency emission limits (AFEL’s), Protection
Levels (PL’s), Power Floors (PF) and maximum permitted interfering signal (MPIS) – are
concepts developed for the purpose of defining a management right. With the exception
of MPIS these terms are not used in ITU standards. They are not used in engineering
standards and can’t guide sharing calculations;
d. ITU-R reports and recommendations provide useful guidance to the ARE in terms of
interference calculation.
15. In light of the matters above, we believe that the Act must remain high level but the precise
definition of all of the above terminology and examples of its usage could be prepared in a
“technical document” that AREs could have regard to in issuing a certificate under the Act. This
technical document could be a reference standard issued by the Secretary (Section 25A),
requiring AREs to have regard to it when issuing a certificate and enabling the document to be
revised more frequently than the revision cycle of the Act.
16. Spark New Zealand Ltd is willing to contribute to the preparation of this document either directly
or via submissions to a Ministry sponsored consultation. Alternatively, the industry could seek to
develop a draft for the Ministry’s agreement. In commenting the various options, and in other
parts of this submission we refer to this “technical document”.
17. In practice, operators have looked outside the regulatory framework to provide more specific radio
engineering guidance. For example, in terms of co-siting requirements, the agreed industry
protocol is to apply an approach based on Interference to Noise (I/N) degradation. In the co-siting
arrangements, it was agreed this should not exceed 0.5 dB.1
1
This level was agreed for co-siting purposes. For other purposes, the relevant level may differ but the
underlying relationships remain relevant.
Radiocomms Act review Public Version 3An agreed technical approach would be required to implement some options
18. Further, the difficulty with a number of the workshop brief options is that they rely on an agreed
approach to radio engineering calculations when none exists in the current framework, for
example:
a. Seeking to provide more guidance by referring to IRR principles in the Act, where these
relate to international obligations and are of limited practical use to AREs (option 4);
b. Requiring AREs to submit calculations, where such calculations will be meaningless
unless able to be compared against agreed good practice (option 1); and
c. Requiring AREs to take in to account cumulative effects where there is no agreed way to
do this (option 7).
19. The Ministry does not necessarily support these options, and neither do we. We do not support
imposing additional obligations on AREs without an agreed framework for ARE calculations.
20. The Ministry is not required to impose additional obligations on AREs. If the Ministry proposes no
change, then the current high level considerations in the Act are sufficient and no more detail is
required. However, if the Ministry does propose to introduce more specific ARE obligations, then
it would need to provide AREs with useful guidance on how to comply with these obligations. As
set out in our earlier submission, the regulatory framework does not provide this guidance. It is
best provided using the ITU-R endorsed interference to noise ratio (I/N) based approach and is
the thinking behind our proposed option [2A].
A technical document could set out common principles for ARE calculations
21. Nonetheless, in light of anticipated more intensive use of spectrum and as proposed above, we
believe there is benefit in developing a common understanding of calculations and parameters.
For example:
a. AREs can take a number of approaches within the broad principles and, as spectrum use
becomes more intensive, disputes over appropriate calculations are more likely. An
agreed understanding of calculations and parameters can form the basis for transparency
over ARE calculations;
b. The industry in now moving to adopt differing approaches licences assigned under the
regulatory framework and those under co-sting arrangements:
i. It is possible that a correctly licenced transmitter may fail to meet the I/N
requirement. A common (or at least reconciled) approach would minimise any
tensions between different licencing instances; and
ii. Conversely, as we move to the use of multiple bands by different operators
requiring co-siting, any restrictions imposed by co-siting may also require
consideration. The restrictions imposed due to co-siting are quantified in terms of
the I/N ratio. Accordingly, the information on present licences may not be
sufficient to determine I/N compliance. Given the licence constructs today
compliance with AFEL/PL can be addressed but the co-siting restrictions are only
addressed between concerned parties on a case by case basis.
Radiocomms Act review Public Version 422. As noted above, the current principles referred to by the Act – i.e. IRRs, ITU-R and management
rights parameters – provide only high level guidance for AREs at best and are not particularly
useful for providing AREs guidance on day to day calculations.
23. Our preference is to refer to the relevant ITU-R reports and recommendations for authoritative
guidance on these calculations, and these reports refer to the I/N approach. ITU-R
recommendations (which may also be referred to by IRRs in some cases) provide guidance to
radio engineers and, if further guidance is necessary, it should be built around these
recommendations. There are many ITU-R recommendations referred to in the relevant to sharing
studies. The I/N approach is commonly used for inter-service sharing, whereas the MPIS
approach is commonly used within the same service and commonly broadcasting. Both MPIS and
I/N can be related to each other. They are not different parameters. Take for example 1kg of
water in a bag called bag A and 1 litre of water in bag called bag B. Both bags have the same
amount of water but have a different parameter to define their water content.
24. An industry aligned position on ARE engineering practice could be compared to the current
framework to identify inconsistencies or gaps, and parameters adopted by the regulatory
framework and policy objectives. For example, the Ministry is considering an ARE obligation to
model cumulative effects and, if it were to progress this option and be effective, it would need to
be based on a common understanding of radio engineering principles. Licences today are only
focussed on AFEL/PL compliance and the cumulative effects of interference cannot be modelled
in this approach. On the other hand modelling the effects of cumulative interference via
degradations to the noise floor is captured in the I/N ratio. All of this discussion could be included
in the “technical document” referred to earlier.
Whether this requires changes to the Act
25. The Act does not sit in isolation from the residual of the regulatory framework, including IRRs, the
Act, regulations made under the Act, PIBs and certification by radio engineers. The regulatory
framework should work consistently across the levels to achieve efficient outcomes rather than
repeat the parties' obligations at every level.
26. The level at which specific changes may be required is not yet clear – any change will depend on
an agreed understanding of technical radio engineering matters, the specific policy concern and
anticipated degree of compulsion. For example, if the Act were amended to require AREs to
make specific considerations, then the Act should also provide the framework for providing
guidance on how to comply with obligation (albeit the technical detail may sit at a different level of
the framework rather than be inserted in the Act).
27. We’ve proposed that, at most, AREs should have regard to industry agreed technical
considerations set out in a technical document. This would promote ARE transparency and a
consistent approach to calculations.
When interference occurs
28. As noted above, the framework doesn’t seek to prevent all interference, it ensures that licenses
deliver the efficient planned and expected outcome.
29. While not common, there will be instances where legitimate use of spectrum rights will have an
impact on other parties and the potential for dispute. Efficiently managing interference requires
Radiocomms Act review Public Version 5co-ordination between the parties. Both transmitting and receiving parties need to work together
to mitigate interference because there are three key aspects to mitigating interference, and the
current framework seeks to foster this co-ordination.
30. As noted in our submission on the discussion paper, we support the general interference
management framework which seeks to encourage management rights holders to resolve
interference issues. It would be inefficient to seek to prevent all spill over between bands and,
therefore, there needs to be co-operation between the rights holders.
31. This means there is a clearly defining management rights holders rights and framework that
encourages the parties to agree efficient management of potential interference at the edges. A
number of options risk undermining this co-operation and rights of management rights holders.
32. It is important that the Ministry is cautious in considering any amendment to the current model as
any changes will have significant implications for MR’s holders and future investment. For
example, any new technology may potentially cause more or less interference and, if this is
defined as being prohibited as of right in interference management arrangements, it will put a
brake on innovation and investment, and on the value of the spectrum that providers have
purchased.
33. Any changes are likely to be contentious as rights holders are subject to different interference
concerns as transmitters and receivers of interference (due to past band planning decisions) and
implications for how rights holders can use spectrum (in which they have made significant
investment).
Definition of harmful interference
34. As noted by the Ministry, a number of submitters propose to redefine the nature of harmful
emissions, which could change current incentives and obligations for mitigating harmful
interference. The parties have different views on what these amendments should be – whether to
make the definition more specific (quantified) or increase the onus on operators when deploying
innovative new services, or make no change at all. In any case, the definition of interference in
the IRR’s is not written in a quantifiable manner to allow sharing calculations. Any amendments
to quantify the definition will have to be the subject of a separate consultation.
35. We agree with the Ministry’s initial view that the definition of harmful interference should not be
amended. On the face of it, from the workshop the underlying concern appears to lie in the
relative obligations of transmitter and receiver to remedy harmful interference and suspected
asymmetric access to available remedies in the regulatory framework. If valid, these concerns
should be resolved by directly addressing the asymmetry rather than amend the definition for
harmful interference. This is because, in part, amending the definition has potentially significant
implications for Management Rights holds and end users. For example, lowering the threshold
for harmful interference reduces the value of the MR that parties have paid significant money for,
and potentially undermines new investment and innovation.
Presumption that unwanted emissions causing harmful interference be removed by
the emitter
36. Further, we consider that the issues that would arise from a presumption against the transmitter
weigh heavily against implementing such a measure and accordingly do not support a shift in the
Radiocomms Act review Public Version 6onus of remediating interference to the transmitting party. We support the view that liability
should be determined on the balance of probability. A party that, as a matter of fact, causes the
interference should ultimately be liable for mitigating any damage caused by such interference
(this could be the emitter or receiver). However, we do not see a reason for introducing a
presumption that the transmitter is presumed to be liable unless proven otherwise. The emphasis
should remain on providing all parties to a dispute with the incentive to find joint, pragmatic
solutions to matters of interference.
37. Creating an onus shift of this nature would be a significant change and largely unprecedented in
any other regulatory framework where an onus shift is unrelated to evidence of causation. It
should be noted that unwanted emissions in the spurious domain exist at frequency ranges even
more than 250% of necessary bandwidth, as defined in ITU-R SM329. It would be impossible to
remove them entirely if the onus is on the transmitter. In a number of cases it is also possible that
the receiver may be at fault - such as through hyper sensitive receiver equipment picking up
otherwise legitimate, anticipated and permissible interference.
38. Further, this will have significant implications for interference management, the receiver has no
incentive to co-ordinate activity and the ability to act strategically in response. It would move us
further away from IRR principles that require the receiver to take efforts to minimise interference.
39. The Ministry notes that putting the onus on transmitters to resolve interference would only be
possible if there were an underlying obligation on receivers to take prudent steps to avoid
interference. We agree that the introduction of an onus of this nature would require a
corresponding set of obligations on receivers. But more importantly we agree with the
disadvantages / limitations identified by the Ministry. There are a number of significant issues
likely to arise from poor receivers which would require significant management resource to police.
Getting the balancing act right would be complex and there is no guarantee that a shift in onus
would efficiently result in an improvement. Overall our view is that there will not be a net benefit in
creating the onus shift and the administrative and technical issues it would militate against it.
Lawful but not harmful interference
40. The Ministry could consider less invasive means to address any concerns relating to access to
remedies for parties that suffer interference which is lawful but has a material business impact yet
does not meet the definition of harmful interference under the Act. This could involve access to a
mediation or other more informal process for resolving disputes.
Equivalence of remedies for transmitters and receivers of interference
41. We also consider that within each relevant category, receivers and transmitters should have equal
access to remedies - for example, by providing for equivalent access to arbitration (by both
transmitter and receiver) to remedies.
Other dispute provisions
42. With regard to the other options considered when interference occurs we:
a. Do not support managers enforcing rights of third parties where the manager itself is
unaffected by the interference;
Radiocomms Act review Public Version 7b. Consider that disputes on unlawful transmission should be dealt with in the most
expeditious manner possible. We also consider that arbitration should not be contingent
on conceding on the lawfulness of the transmission. There may be circumstances where
a dispute relates to transmissions which are partly lawful and partly unlawful. We support
a pragmatic approach to making arbitration available without conceding on lawfulness,
such as by permitting parties to ventilate the merits of the dispute if the balance of
convenience favours it without conceding on lawfulness. In that way the arbitration can
consider both the lawfulness and the merits of the dispute simultaneously to ensure that
any remedy is appropriate in the circumstances;
c. Do not support the introduction of new timeframes into the Act where the Arbitration Act
already provides for timeframes;
d. Consider that there is a role for interim measures and agree that the Arbitration Act
already provides for these;
e. Partly support reducing the prominence of the first in time right. Where the right is used
for the purpose of tactical blocking (or limiting the use of spectrum by others) or where the
prior use is materially out of date with current uses, the first in time right should not take
priority;
f. Are not convinced that arbitration should be extended to general user licences but would
be open to considering a less onerous regime being made available for these licences,
such as a mediation option;
g. Support a greater role for the Ministry in resolving disputes, in principle; and
h. Support the inclusion of a right of appeal on a point of law but do not support the
introduction of a merits review provision, given the complexity associated with possible
merits review options.
END
Radiocomms Act review Public Version 8Attachment: detailed comments on options
Option Ministry initial view Spark NZ comment
Spectrum licence certification
The licence certifier – AREs and ARCs
Option 1: Extend the requirement on AREs to retain On balance, the Ministry considers that retention of the It should not be onerous for AREs to retain calculations for
engineering calculations after a licence is registered for seven ARE’s calculations beyond the current seven years would be the term of the licence.
years to the term of the licence of benefit to the licensing process. The Ministry is open to
hearing views, particularly from AREs, on the workability of In principle, ARE must undertake calculations required by the
this proposal and whether retention by AREs individually, or licence to ensure compliance, but the calculations may not
as a document attached to the licence record in the Register, be shared. If the Ministry were to require engineers to
is preferred. submit such information, then standardised calculation
procedures may need to be defined. For this to happen, the
terminologies used by the act, Adjacent frequency emission
limits (AFEL’s), Protection Levels (PL’s), Power Floors (PF) and
Maximum permitted interfering signal (MPIS) would need to
be rigorous, aligned to ITU-R standards, and be directly
applicable to sharing calculations. These definitions and
examples of standardised calculation procedures may be the
subject of a separate document known as the “technical
document”. The Act may refer to the “technical document”.
Option 2: Add provisions to introduce liability of approved The Ministry is not convinced adding liability under the Act We are generally not aware of any particular concerns with
persons for poor licence certification would increase the standard of certification. The Ministry is radio engineer licensing and, accordingly, it is difficult to
of the view that, where required, additional auditing of determine the appropriate policy response.
licences and introducing professional training for AREs would
achieve the objective of improving certification practice.
Option 2A Define the parameters to be used by The Ministry agrees that there is a need to better define We support improving ARE alignment over radio engineering
radio engineers in calculations, including AFEL's, PL's, Power some parameters used in the Act. The Ministry does not calculations and parameters.
Floors, MPIS (terminology used by the licence) etc and how consider it appropriate for the Act to include any technical
these can be used in sharing calculations. (Even if the detail or calculation methods for engineering licences, and If there is to be more rigorous obligations (or liability) on
obligations on the ARE are not increased there is a need for a considers this could be achieved through developing radio engineers, then there will need to be more
definition of the parameters). additional guidance and/or professional development specification of parameters to be used for engineering
training for AREs. calculations. As discussed above, this could form part of the
“technical document”
Matters an engineer must certify
Option 2B The engineer should certify that the licence is Section 10 and 38 of the Act require that the Registrar must We agree the Ministry shouldn’t consider duplicating the
compliant with the AFEL’s, PLs, etc provided there is an not register a management right where the AFEL exceeds the existing provisions and role of the registrar.
agreed definition and methodology somewhere in the PL of an adjacent management right.
regulatory frame work described in paragraph 9
Radiocomms Act review Public Version 9Option Ministry initial view Spark NZ comment
Section 25 of the Act sets out the duties of the Registrar However, if the Ministry is suggesting that the ARE must
when registering a spectrum licence. These duties include certify that a licence is compliant with AFEL’s etc., then there
that the Registrar must not certify a licence where the UEL would need to be an agreed definition and methodology in
exceeds the AFEL. the regulatory framework (but not necessarily detailed in the
Act). This is because the nature of interference is such that,
The Ministry does not consider duplicating the existing while ARE calculations may indicate it is compliant, it may
provisions and role of the Registrar is necessary. subsequently prove not to be the case. The only guarantee
an ARE can make is that calculations are undertaken in
accordance with an agreed framework.
Option 3: Further define 'technically compatible' in the Act The Ministry is leaning away from further defining technical We do support changes to the definition of IRRs.
compatibility. However the Ministry is keen to hear further
views on this matter. If the scope of IRRs is extended to include ITU
recommendations, this should be discussed in the proposed
“technical document” and not in the Act.
Option 4: Incorporate some of the key requirements of the This option needs further consideration including any In regulatory parlance the IRR’s have a treaty level status to
IRR as principles in the Act mechanisms through which the principles could have effect. which we are signatories to. Therefore the Act should comply
The Ministry is keen to hear views on the merits or otherwise with IRR’s. However, the IRR’s per se do not give quantifiable
of this option, and the purpose the principles could be put to. guidance in sharing calculations. Unless the scope of IRR’s is
Option 5: Provide guidance on the IRR and require AREs to On balance, we do not support providing guidance extended to include relevant ITU recommendations
have regard to the guidance when certifying a licence documentation to the IRR that is referenced and must be
complied with under the Act Without knowing the explicit parts of the IRR’s that an ARE
Option 5A Provide guidance on how to give effect to The Ministry considers that detailed technical guidance is not must adhere to it would be very hard to identify the key
IRRs, by either appropriate within the Act. However we are seeking requirements. Therefore, we do not support incorporating
i. Reference to the appropriate ITU-R recommendations feedback on whether additional guidance for AREs on the key requirements of the IRR as principles in the Act. We are
(without reference to the interference to noise ratio (I/N)); or certification process, assessment of technical compatibility not aware of concerns relating to IRR compliance.
ii. Reference to I/N parameters such as I/N threshold values. and the IRR should be developed and be provided through
other mechanisms outside the Act. IRRs are designed for international radio spectrum
management, i.e. managing inference between countries.
IRRs have already been considered by the Ministry in
deciding spectrum use and associated constraints on it. In
other words, the existing regulatory instruments should
already have IRR principles build in to them and do not need
further principles in legislation. Beyond that, the IRRs don’t
provide specific guidance to radio engineers.
In terms of ARE considerations, there are no neighbouring
countries in NZ to cause interference arising from foreign
Radiocomms Act review Public Version 10Option Ministry initial view Spark NZ comment
sources and the need to invoke international IRR's.
Therefore, IRRs provide limited practical advice for AREs.
However, the ITU-R recommendations (which may also be
referred to by IRRs in some cases) do provide guidance to
radio engineers and, if further guidance is necessary, it
should be built around these recommendations rather than
the higher level IRRs. Note the IRR’s and ITU-R
recommendations are different aspects of what the ITU-R
does. There are many ITU-R recommendations not referred
to in the IRR’s but relevant to sharing studies.
As set out in the body of our comments above, the noise
ratio approach is the one that is adopted I doing inter-service
calculations by the ITU-R and maybe more useful when
complying with unknown key requirements
Option 6: Provide guidance outside the Act around the The Ministry is seeking views on whether the Ministry should We agree that there is some benefit in developing a common
certification process and assessment of technical investigate additional professional development training and, understanding of radio engineering principles. However, as
compatibility and the IRR if needed, whether the industry is supportive of using I/N is a key methodological approach used for the purposes
revenue from licensing fees to fund the development of such of ITU-R guidance, we do not support relying solely on IRRs
training. and compatibility for this common understanding - these
concepts are not helpful for AREs.
This guidance can be provided in the “technical document”
that the Act may refer to.
Whether a guideline will be sufficient will depend on the
policy approach. The Ministry can provide guidance on
implementation of ITU-R guidelines. Issue is that you can’t
place specific obligations on AREs without guidance on how
to comply, and there is no point being more specific about
IRRs as these are not helpful for ARE calculations (as
proposed in previous options). Therefore, guidelines must be
specific and general guidelines are not helpful.
Additional matters part of assessing technical compatibility
Option 7: Include cumulative effects in the matters to be The Ministry considers that establishing a new regime to We agree that it is not necessary to establish a new regime to
considered as part of the assessment of technical manage cumulative sources of interference is not necessary. manage cumulative sources of interference. ARE analysis
compatibility during the licensing stage The Ministry is of the view that any additional margin should inherently address the cumulative effects.
Radiocomms Act review Public Version 11Option Ministry initial view Spark NZ comment
required in addressing cumulative effects should be
considered at the preliminary frequency planning stage. It is not possible to separately assess single and cumulative
Alternatively, the Ministry could provide guidance as set out interference by the receiver unless they are individually
in PIBs on a case-by-case basis in addressing cumulative flagged. We are not aware of a means of achieving this
effects where appropriate. granularity. Therefore the radio engineer can only consider
the net effect.
When AREs certify licences in planned bands, the Ministry
believes fulfilling technical compatibility by taking into Further, licences today are only focussed on AFEL/PL
account the IRR and the relevant International compliance and cumulative effects of interference cannot be
Telecommunications Union –Radiocommunications Sector modelled in this approach. The Ministry would need to
(ITU-R) Recommendations/Reports would also inherently introduce new concepts in to the framework to provide for
address the cumulative effects. cumulative effects. As noted elsewhere, we believe there are
strong technical reasons for moving to the ITU-R supported
signal to interference ratio approach in any case. Modelling
the effects of cumulative interference via degradations to the
noise floor is inherently captured in the I/N ratio. The
amount of permissible degradation is service dependent. For
example mobile services operate close to the noise floor, any
degradation to the noise floor will in turn limit the coverage.
Therefore only nominal degradations such as 0.5dB are
considered acceptable.
The Act could refer to I/N values, contained in the “technical
document” that must be respected by cumulative
interference.
The only way to consider cumulative effects is through an I/N Cumulative effects are taken into account during the Licences today are only focussed on AFEL/PL compliance.
based approach, therefore assessment of technical compatibility of the proposed licence Cumulative effects of interference cannot be modelled in this
Option 7A Consider a move to the I/N ratio based through consideration of the ITU – R Recommendations and approach. On the other hand modelling the effects of
approach to consider the effect of cumulative interference in Reports. In the radio licensing regime, PIB 38 requires cumulative interference via degradations to the noise floor is
license creation. engineers to consider cumulative effects when engineering a captured in the I/N ratio. The amount of permissible
new radio licence. degradation is service dependent. For example, mobile
services operate close to the noise floor, any degradation to
In the management rights regime, cumulative effects to and the noise floor will in turn limit the coverage.
from the intended use are taken into account when
engineering the management rights. Where services in the If the Ministry wishes to ensure cumulative effects are taken
management right are outside those of the ‘intended in to account, then the only way to do this is ensuring that
service’, these assessments of cumulative effects may not be AREs undertake an I/N based approach to licencing, i.e. not
relevant. focus solely on AFEL/PL compliance in the licence.
Radiocomms Act review Public Version 12Option Ministry initial view Spark NZ comment
The Ministry is keen to hear views on whether the I/N ratio As set out above, we support the I/N approach – being
method should be used for all management rights, however consistent with ITU-R guidance and commonly adopted
recognises that I/N is best suited for cellular mobile or internationally. If the I/N is adopted more widely then it is
similarly designed systems. not necessary to provide an additional cumulative effects
obligation.
Option 8: Require planned licences to be considered as part The Ministry invites views on whether planned licences We are not aware of the treatment of planned licences
of the licence engineering process and assessment of should be recognised in the Act, and whether this has causing concerns/difficulties. A planned licence can only
technical compatibility created issues for licensees in the past. However at this have a life of around 3 months in any case.
stage, we are not convinced this is a significant issue
requiring amendment of the Act. In terms of future uses, the difficulty with future compliance
Option 9: Require consideration of future uses during licence The Ministry’s initial view: is that any consideration relating obligations is not knowing what constitutes the future and
engineering to technical compatibility with future uses of a frequency being able to accurately predict the future so that
band should be addressed at the preliminary frequency interference co-ordination can be done. We think it difficult
planning stage. to prescribe any requirement to consider technical
Option 9A Consider mechanisms to discourage Regulation 15B of the Radiocommunications Regulations compatibility with potential future uses.
strategic allocation of spectrum by, for example, requiring a 2001 provide for the Ministry to immediately revoke a radio
licence to be re-issued if it is not used for a certain period licence on specified grounds. These include whether the Alternatively, we understood from the workshop discussion
(competing used could in this example notify the Ministry if a licence is not in sufficient use. As such, the Ministry already is that there may be a concern that radio engineers could
license was issued and remained unused). has the ability to revoke radio licences if they have not been allocate licences strategically to, for example, block
used. This provision is rarely used. The Ministry investigates competing use of adjacent spectrum (and this informed
complaints when these are received. There is currently no options 8 and 9). If this were the case, then we believe it
ability for the Ministry to revoke or cancel a spectrum licence more appropriate to address this concern directly through an
in a private management right. The Ministry has been of the option such as 9A rather than apply new and difficult to apply
view that commercial imperatives would mean thatprivate obligations on AREs.
management rights holders would maximise their use of
spectrum. As such we are interested to hear from private Management rights holders have incentives to use spectrum
management right holders on the need for and merits of this efficiently and, in the absence of evidence that there is a
option. problem of strategic licencing, we do not support any
change. It would be difficult to determine the appropriate
response in isolation of a known policy issue.
Emission parameters and unwanted emissions
Accuracy of licence information
Option 10A Require licenses to list Section 25(5)(e) requires AREs to certify that a proposed The protection limit does not capture the receiver
information that would enable licensees to complete spectrum licence “will sufficiently define the protection area parameters such as ACS, the receiver’s ability to listen to
interference assessment and ensure that their licence and the nature and characteristics of the proposed transmissions in its own band etc. Therefore the current
complies with the AFEL/PL and any other requirements etc. transmissions to enable subsequent spectrum licences and Form 7 list of parameters is not adequate. Furthermore the
radio licences to be co-ordinated with the exercise of rights to
Radiocomms Act review Public Version 13Option Ministry initial view Spark NZ comment
Again, this would require a clear and common understanding which the spectrum licence relates for the purpose of licence can’t contain sufficient information because the
of the key parameters. avoiding harmful interference.” parameters are not sufficient defined in the framework.
The Ministry would like to hear feedback on whether there is
an assumption that if all information in Form 7 (Spectrum The present terminology used in licensing (adjacent
licence) of Schedule 7 of the Regulations is provided, then a frequency emission limits, protection limits, power floor etc)
licence contains sufficient information. In addition, we would is ambiguous and is not aligned to ITU-R standards. For
like to hear whether industry considers whether there is example Power floor has no bandwidth associated with it,
additional information that should be provided on a licence, therefore it contradicts the principles of resolution
and if so whether this should be required under Form 7. bandwidth given in ITU-R SM 329. Notwithstanding this, it is
difficult in the present regime to quantify receiver
degradations in the presence of single or multiple interferers.
Our response proposes better alignment of the interference
assessment methodology with international ITU R standards.
Option 10: Set (and enforce) tolerance limits on [Applies to radio licensing regime]. The Ministry is not We believe the Ministry should police over recording when it
over-recording licence parameters supportive of amending the Act to address this issue. is done with a malicious, blocking or spectrum inefficient
manor.
Option 11: Increase scrutiny of licence applications Increasing licence audits to check for over recording is not We believe the Ministry should police over recording when it
at the licensing stage. supported. However this does not preclude increasing audits is done with a malicious, blocking or spectrum inefficient
for other reasons such as to ensure licence certification is manor.
robust.
Option 12: Require regular audits or additional The Ministry is not persuaded that this issue requires any We agree with the Ministry, audits should be undertaken but
monitoring of [radio] licences to ensure licence parameters amendment to the Act (or Regulations). Additional audit of these don’t need to be specified at the Act level. This is
appropriately reflect real transmissions licences is likely to resolve any underuse issues. Undertaking relevant for shared bands but not for bands under the
these audits is a business decision for the Ministry. spectrum management regime. This is also important in
The Ministry is keen to hear views on whether industry terms of 1st in time rights being over or under protected.
considers that additional auditing is required.
Reference bandwidths
Option 13: Add reference bandwidths to all power The Ministry considers that adding reference bandwidths for If the Ministry wishes to add these parameters, it would need
related parameters all power related parameters in the Act would be beneficial. to be done in accordance with ITU –R SM329.
The key parameter in the Act is the power floor. However
other parameters could also benefit from adding a reference
bandwidth as a matter of best practice. These include
Adjacent Frequency Emission Limits, Protection Limits,
Unwanted Emission Limits and maximum power for
transmissions.
Option 13A: Add reference bandwidths to all signal The Ministry agrees that bandwidths should be added to Agree with the Ministry view but the list of parameters
level related parameters. parameters where this will increase the clarity of the Act and should be in the “technical document”.
its provisions.
Radiocomms Act review Public Version 14Option Ministry initial view Spark NZ comment
Option 13B The term power floor is The Ministry notes that the power floor has three roles under The term power floor in relation to management rights is
anomalous and should be removed from regulatory frame the Act and has proposed that one role, managing unwanted specific to the New Zealand framework. Accordingly, the
work described in paragraph 9. Remove power floor in emissions outside the UEL, is removed. The power floor also approach does not appear in any ITU R documentation on
respect of management right under the Act. • delineates the boundary below which the Ministry may spectrum management, nor does it appear in any equipment
issue radio licences, typically for low power, wide-band standard literature. It does not translate to criteria that one
applications, and can use to determine the impact of interference on a victim
• sets the minimum value for the protection limit. receiver. The Ministry should consider removing the term
from the regulatory framework.
Should the power floor be removed, alternate methods to
achieve the above would need to be established. Interferences should be below the noise floor as governed by
the required I/N value. Therefore interference 16dB below
the noise floor will cause minimal or no degradation to the
victim service. When the power floor is removed it could be
replaced by an equivalent I/N value. This could be further
discussed in the “technical document”.
Co-location
Option 14: Establish the role of the site manager and The Ministry does not see merit in pursuing this option. Agree, it’s difficult to see the benefit of this position (and if
their responsibilities in the Act there was, it would happening already unless there’s a
specific statutory purpose for the role).
Unwanted emissions and power floors
Option 15: Remove the role of the power floor to The Ministry supports the removal of the role of the power The term power floor is ambiguous, is undefined in any
manage unwanted emissions, and retain the power floor only floor to define the default ‘unwanted emissions limit’ in standards literature is totally and utterly wrong. It has no
to delineate the boundary between the radio licensing and management rights. We recognise that a new mechanism to connection with unwanted emissions of which definitions are
management rights regime and set the minimum value for manage unwanted emissions would be required and we are contained in ITU-R SM329. The removal of the power floor to
the protection limit within a management right. keen to hear views on how this could work. manage unwanted emissions is good but it should be totally
removed and should not be used to delineate between
management rights and radio licencing
Option 16: Require unwanted emissions to reduce in The Ministry is interested in hearing from management right We do not know what is meant by industry best practice.
power in accordance with industry best practice and the holders whether or not they consider it appropriate for the Emissions wanted and unwanted can be reduced via filtering,
relevant standard for the equipment /service being provided Ministry to not applying reference standards to management antenna isolation, physical isolation etc. All these isolation
rights under section 133. techniques are agnostic to wanted or unwanted emissions,
therefore we do not know what the Ministry wants.
However, a colocation protocol has been agreed by industry
in NZ that any degradation to the noise floor should not
degrade by 0.5dB or an equivalent I/N of 6dB.
.Option 16A Remove power floor and set The Ministry agrees that the role of the power floor in Unwanted emission levels can be set by the appropriate I/N
unwanted emission levels by reference to standards, for managing unwanted emissions outside the UEL is confusing. value, which can be defined in the “technical document”
example, ITU-R SM329 in the case of mobile networks. An alternative mechanism to manage unwanted emissions is
Radiocomms Act review Public Version 15Option Ministry initial view Spark NZ comment
required. The Ministry is keen to hear views on the most
appropriate mechanism to achieve. This could be achieved by
reference to:
• the relevant parts of the IRR,
• equipment standards (as for radio licences), and / or
• other industry best practice guidelines or standards.
Defining receive protection
Option 17: Add an MPIS parameter for co-channel The Ministry is reluctant to extend the applicability of MPIS The act places a big onus on the transmitter for interference
and adjacent channel signals to adjacent channel signals. coordination and ignores the corresponding onus on the
receiver. Both transmitters and receivers must work
according to appropriate specifications. If the Ministry wants
to provide more specific guidance on receiver protection, it
should consider providing more useful guidance through an
I/N approach as proposed in option 18.
Option 18: Replace MPIS with difference parameter The Ministry does not support replacing the MPIS parameter Sharing compared with broadcasting centric MPIS. Note MPIS
such as I/N with I/N. and I/N can be related to each other.
Option 18A: Replace MPIS with a different parameter The Ministry considers that the I/N method is a good The I/N method is not specific to mobile. The Ministry with
such as an I/N threshold value, that sets the maximum approach for mobile centric services. MPIS is a better due respect is almost certainly wrong. We would like to draw
inference level that a receiver can be subjected to, beyond approach for broadcast-centric services. However, we the Ministry’s attention to Joint Task Group 4-5-6-7 output
which the performance degradation may not be acceptable. consider that there are difficulties in applying either documents that consider the interference between mobile
approach to all types of service. We are interested in and many other services and all consider I/N.
receiving feedback on these or other proposals to define
receive protection.
Option 19: Make the MPIS parameter 'optional' in The Ministry is leaning towards making the MPIS an optional MPIS or an equivalent I/N value should be retained on the
Form 7 parameter on Form 7. The Ministry is keen to hear views on form 7.
what other parameters could be used to define a protection
area or whether a spectral power parameter is required for
the protection area.
Receiver performance
Option 20: Include receiver performance on licence The Ministry considers there is merit in this option and is Yes it should be. At the moment the emphasis on
seeking feedback on the best method to achieve this. interference co-ordination is on the transmitter and less so
on the receiver. Transmitters should operate in their
allocated bands, and allowed to send out of band emissions
and spurious emissions as per relevant standards. Likewise
receivers should be restricted to their specific bands and be
able to function in the presence of interferers that meet the
receiver’s adjacent channel selectivity criteria. This
Radiocomms Act review Public Version 16Option Ministry initial view Spark NZ comment
parameter and receiver blocking criteria should be listed on
the licence.
Option 20A Define receiver performance by The Ministry is interested in hearing feedback on the best The Ministry is wrong in saying that adjacent channel
reference to receiver parameters such as adjacent channel method to address receiver performance information on selectivity and blocking are generally mobile centric
selectivity and receiver blocking. licences. We note that adjacent channel selectivity and parameters. We would like to draw the attention of the
receiver blocking are generally mobile centric parameters. Ministry to text books on radio engineering that characterise
the performance of any receiver via these two parameters.
Furthermore we wish to draw the attention of the Ministry to
the recently held 5D meeting where the adjacent channel
selectivity of TV receivers has been supplied by the broadcast
community in an input contribution. Receiver performance
parameters can be defined in the “technical document”.
Option 21: Reverse the policy decision to not apply [Act provides for the Ministry to issue reference standards, The management rights are technology neutral and must
Reference Standards issued under section 133 to the but policy is not to set standards for frequencies covered by remain so.
management rights regime MRs.] The Ministry is keen to hear from private management
right owners and rightholders in Crown management rights
as to whether this merits further consideration outside the
Act review.
When interference occurs
We have already expressed reservation on the concept of
power floors. Protection of victim receivers should be done
with the help of I/N ratios whose value may be specific to a
service that needs protection.
The requirement to protect from harmful interference is
simply too broad. In this case no systems will ever be able to
co- exist as interference is always there and for a very small
percentage of time harmful interference could occur.
Option 22: Amend the definition of harmful The Ministry is not convinced that the definition of harmful We agree that there should be no change to the definition of
interference interference is an issue, rather where issues have arisen, this harmful interference. The harmful interference definition is
43. is more aligned to the definition of rights and the remedies important because it prohibits the otherwise legitimate use
available under the Act. The Ministry welcomes any of spectrum where it effects safety services or seriously
suggestions around how the definition can be improved. impacts radiocommunications.
Option 22A Undertake a separate The Ministry is not convinced the definition of harmful
consultation on policy issues, and policy objectives relating to interference is an issue. However, we are interested in The current definition provides for harmful interference that
changes to the definition of harmful interference. industry feedback on how the definition could be improved endangers radionavigation and other safety services, or
and whether the issue warrants more detailed study. seriously impacts radiocommunications.
Radiocomms Act review Public Version 17Option Ministry initial view Spark NZ comment
The Ministry notes that, where concerns have been
expressed, these generally relate to definition of rights and
remedies available under the Act. We agree that, if there are
such issues, the Ministry should not look to amend the
definition to resolve them. This could have significant
implications for efficient use of spectrum and parties’
management rights.
Given the significance of any change, if the Ministry wants to
consider this further, it should undertake further
consultation.
Option 23: Add a general presumption in the Act On balance, the Ministry is leaning towards introducing a We do not support shifting the onus of removing unwanted
that unwanted emissions causing harmful interference general presumption that transmitters causing harmful emissions solely on to the transmitter. Take for example the
should be removed by the transmitter. interference should remove unwanted emissions. However, case of old TV receivers tuning to frequency ranges that were
this would need to be coupled with appropriate standards for once broadcast but are now in use for mobile. If these
receiver performance. receivers have performance issues to mobile transmissions
Option 23A Consider remedies available The Ministry welcomes feedback on this issue. then the onus of addressing these consequences is not on
under the Act for resolving harmful interference to ensure the transmitter.
receivers and transmitters have equivalent access to
remedies. Nonetheless, we do support the idea of equal access to
remedies for transmitters and receivers. If the Ministry
makes changes as suggested in option 25, this will likely
resolve any differences between transmitters and receivers
in access to arbitration.
Interference investigations
Option 24: Enable the manager to initiate an The Ministry is not convinced of the need for its enforcement We support the Ministry’s initial view. We recognise there
injunction under section 118 for unlawful use of their or interference management roles to be expanded. However may be circumstances when the Ministry should have the
spectrum we are interested to hear from management right owners power to enforce or take action against unlawful use of
whether or not they consider there is a need to add management rights assigned to others. However we do not
‘manager’ to the list of those able to take action under support expanding the standing of a management right
section 118. holder to initiate an injunction against a transmitter
interfering with the management rights of a third party
where the management rights holder’s own rights are not
affected.
On the face of it, it’s unclear what the purpose of adding
management rights owners to the section 118 list would be.
Radiocomms Act review Public Version 18You can also read
