Decision on Releasing Millimetre Wave Spectrum to Support 5G

28. In line with adopting a flexible use licensing model and facilitating the shared use of the 26 GHz and 28 GHz bands by terrestrial and satellite services, ISED sought comments on the proposed changes below to the CTFA, in the Consultation and the Addendum:

ADD CXX: In the frequency band 26.5-27.0 GHz, use of spectrum for fixed service systems and mobile service systems will be given priority over Earth exploration-satellite service systems and space research systems sharing this spectrum on a co-primary basis. Earth exploration-satellite service and space research service implementation in this band will be limited to applications that will pose minimal constraints upon the deployment of fixed service systems and mobile service systems.

MOD C47A: In the begin insertfrequencyend insert band begin insert27.0end insertbegin deletion27.35end deletion-28.35 GHz, use of spectrum for fixed service systems begin insertand mobile service systemsend insert will be given priority over fixed-satellite service systems sharing this spectrum on a co-primary basis. Fixed-satellite service implementation in this band will be limited to applications that will pose minimal constraints upon the deployment of fixed service systems begin insertand mobile service systemsend insert, such as a small number of large antennas for feeder links.

29. ISED also sought comments on a proposal to continue to allow airborne and maritime earth stations in motion (ESIM) to communicate with geostationary FSS space stations in this frequency band on a case-by-case basis, on the condition of no-interference, no-protection.

Summary of comments

30. BCBA, Bell, BSO, CASCA, Ciel, Cogeco, CSA, Ericsson, Facebook, GSA, Huawei, Intel, MobilExchange, Nokia, RABC, Rogers, Samsung, SaskTel, Shaw, 5G Americas, Telesat, TELUS, TeraGo, ViaSat, and Xplornet supported proposed changes to the CTFA domestic footnotes and the policy on this band contained in SP 3-30 GHz, Revisions to Spectrum Utilization Policies in the 3-30 GHz Frequency Range and Further Consultation.

31. Several satellite operators (BSO, Ciel, Intelsat, Telesat and ViaSat) stressed the importance of satellite communications in rural and remote areas. In particular, Telesat stated the policy should reflect Canada's unique geography and demographics, and align with ISED's goal of making innovative telecommunications services available to all Canadians, including satellite-dependent communities in rural Canada and the North. Furthermore, the RABC pointed out that satellite systems provide geographic coverage of all of Canada, including territorial waters and where terrestrial networks are not economic or are temporarily affected by natural disaster. It also indicated that innovative new satellite systems could provide backhaul/transport connectivity and capacity for 5G as well as 5G compatible mobile-satellite service/Internet of Things.

32. BSO, Ciel, RABC, SaskTel, Telesat and ViaSat suggested changes to the wording in footnote C47A with respect to antenna size, since smaller antennas could be deployed for feeder links as satellite technology advances. TELUS and Ericsson indicated they were not opposed to this proposal.

33. There was also general consensus with respect to the deployment of ESIM in the band 27.5-28.35 GHz. The majority of respondents agreed with the proposal to limit the deployment of ESIM to airborne and maritime and to not permit land-based ESIM. Rogers expressed concerns with potential interference from airborne ESIM and proposed that ISED supply additional information on these devices prior to adopting licensing conditions for this band. Ciel and ViaSat urged ISED to allow all ESIM on a case-by-case basis and continue to study policies and rules to permit access for all services. BSO and Ciel considered that ESIM should not be limited to communicating with GSO satellites and should expand to NGSO satellites as well.

34. While ISED did not address the issue of High Altitude Platform Stations (HAPS) in its consultation paper, both Telesat and Facebook provided comments on the matter. Facebook explained that it is currently developing a solar-powered, high-altitude unmanned fixed wing plane to deliver broadband fixed backhaul connectivity. Facebook was of the view that there is potential to integrate HAPS into the 5G networks, thus extending 5G service coverage to underserved areas. In its reply comments, Telesat argued that it is premature to consider HAPS use of the 27.5-28.35 GHz band, given the "lack of an international allocation to HAPS".

Discussion

35. Flexible use terrestrial stations could be subject to interference from FSS transmitting earth stations emissions in the frequency band 27.0-28.35 GHz. Conversely, Earth exploration-satellite service (EESS) and space research service (SRS) receiving earth stations in the frequency band 26.5-27.0 GHz could be subject to interference from flexible use terrestrial stations. However, ISED maintains that sharing between terrestrial and satellite services is feasible in the 26 GHz and 28 GHz bands. The operation of fixed-satellite earth stations in Canada is currently authorized by means of radio licences as described in CPC-2-6-01, Procedure for the Submission of Applications to License Fixed Earth Stations and to Approve the Use of Foreign Satellites in Canada. In order to enable the coexistence of both flexible use systems and satellite services in these bands, ISED will consult on the licensing framework for flexible use, update earth station licensing rules, and develop coordination rules in the future.

36. Given ISED's decision to facilitate sharing between terrestrial fixed and mobile services and the relevant satellite services in the mmWave spectrum, consequential changes in or addition of footnotes to these bands are required. ISED will adopt changes to footnote C47A to provide priority to both the fixed and mobile services over the relevant satellite services in the 27.0-28.35 GHz band.

37. Footnote C47A afforded priority to the fixed service over the fixed-satellite service in the 27.35-28.35 GHz segment of the frequency band, while in the immediate adjacent band, 28.35-29.1 GHz, priority is afforded to the fixed-satellite service over the fixed service through footnote C16F. In the Consultation and the Addendum, ISED proposed to extend the priority provided to fixed service in the band 27.35-28.35 GHz to also apply to the mobile service and to apply the provision to the band 26.5-27.35 GHz as well. As indicated in the summary of comments, this priority approach, which has been implemented in the past and is also referred to as soft partitioning in SP 3-30 GHz, was favoured by a wide range of stakeholders. Soft partitioning has been applied in situations where it is desirable to place emphasis on the use of the spectrum by one service over another. In this fashion, access to the spectrum would not be removed, but would be limited to implementations that would not constrain the development of the service for which the priority would be given. This was intended to facilitate the implementation of applications or services where the deployment of terminals would occur in a ubiquitous manner, with minimal burden of coordination and the possibility of authorization on a spectrum and geographic area basis. For example, the Local Multipoint Communication Systems (LMCS) policy in the 28 GHz band was based on a soft partitioning approach; the policy identified specific LMCS market areas that were defined based on highly populated areas where their deployment would be expected. Fixed satellite earth stations may have access to the band outside LMCS market areas subject to spectrum sharing conditions.

38. Using an approach similar to the one described above, while continued sharing with FSS is supported in these bands, the deployment of satellite earth stations shall not be of ubiquitous nature since ubiquitous satellite earth station deployment will likely impose constraints on the fixed and mobile services. To clarify this, footnote C47A will be amended to limit the FSS use in the band 27.0-28.35 GHz to low density deployments of earth stations. As well, in order to enable spectrum access by both flexible use systems and satellite services, and recognizing the important and often critical role of satellite communications in providing connectivity in rural and remote areas such as the North, ISED intends to consult, through the licensing framework consultation, on a set of specific areas that could be afforded some flexibility when applying the licensing and coordination rules.

39. Similarly, in the 26.5-27.0 GHz band, a new footnote, C47C, will be added to provide priority to both the fixed and mobile services over EESS and SRS. As well, ISED intends to consult on a set of specific areas where flexibility could be afforded.

40. Taking into account comments received, ISED agrees that clarification of certain parts of footnote C47A would be beneficial. ISED recognizes that there are different approaches that satellite operators can take to minimize the constraints on mobile and fixed services, such as site selection and site shielding. Given that ISED will establish specific coexistence rules with a view to strike a balance between the needs of satellite and terrestrial services (see section 7), footnote C47A will also be amended to remove the example regarding the size of antenna.

41. Preliminary studies indicate that due to the ubiquitous nature of land-based ESIM and the potential lack of geographical or altitudinal separation between land-based ESIM and flexible use stations, there is high potential to create harmful interference to flexible use systems; as such, ISED will not permit land-based ESIM in the band 27.5-28.35 GHz at this time. However, ISED is of the view that airborne and maritime ESIM that communicate with FSS space stations will have less potential to cause interference to flexible use systems since it is not expected that they will be deployed in large numbers and due to the geographical or altitudinal separation. Therefore, airborne and maritime ESIM will be permitted to operate in the band 27.5-28.35 GHz on a case-by-case basis on condition of no-interference, no-protection with respect to flexible use stations.

42. WRC-19 will be considering the spectrum needs and regulatory measures for HAPS in the frequency bands 21.4-22 GHz, 24.25-27.5 GHz and 38-39.5 GHz. ISED will monitor the development of HAPS at the international level and any changes to allow the use of HAPS in these bands in Canada would be subject to a future consultation.

Decisions

43. In order to facilitate equipment harmonization and simplify coordination between terrestrial services along the Canada-U.S. border, ISED had proposed, in the Consultation, to align the Canadian band plan for the 27.5-28.35 GHz band with the U.S. band plan (shown in figure 1 below) using two 425 MHz unpaired blocks.

44. In the Addendum, recognizing that the U.S. 26 GHz band plan had not been proposed for 5G services at the time, ISED sought comments on the importance of harmonization with the U.S. band plan, noting the lack of a U.S. 26 GHz band plan and that the U.S. 28 GHz band plan is not a multiple of the 3GPP channel bandwidths (50, 100, 200 and 400 MHz), but rather two blocks of 425 MHz. ISED also sought comments on the importance of adopting a Canadian band plan based on multiples of 3GPP channel bandwidths in the 26.5-28.35 GHz frequency range.

45. Subsequent to its initial rule making, the FCC also released a Third FNPRM to seek comments on the 25.25-27.5 GHz band and proposed that either 100 MHz or 200 MHz blocks be adopted in the band.

Summary of comments

46. The majority of the comments received in response to the Consultation, including those from 5G Americas, BCBA, BSO, Ericsson, GSA, Huawei, Intel, Intelsat, MobilExchange, Nokia, RABC, Samsung, Telesat, TELUS, and Xplornet, supported the proposed 28 GHz band plan.

47. However, Cogeco, Microsoft, Rogers, SaskTel, Shaw, and TeraGo favoured a band plan that could accommodate more than two operators. Rogers proposed a band plan with four 200 MHz blocks and one block of 25 MHz at each edge of the band. Shaw proposed a band plan consisting of four blocks of 212.5 MHz each. In their reply comments, Cogeco and SaskTel stated their support for Rogers' proposal and their opposition to Shaw's proposal. In its comments, Bell stated that large block sizes, 100 MHz and up, were preferable and that it would be prudent to defer the decision on block sizes until 3GPP completes their deliberations on bandwidths. CBNL suggested a 28 GHz band plan with Time Division Duplexing (TDD) in the lower portion of the band and Frequency Division Duplexing (FDD) in the upper portion.

48. In response to the Addendum, Bell, Cogeco, Ericsson, Huawei, Québecor, Rogers, SaskTel, Shaw, and TELUS stressed the importance of aligning the use of the spectrum with the U.S. and international standards. However, they also indicated that a full alignment with the U.S. band plan was not essential given that the 26.5-28.35 GHz frequency range is part of the 3GPP band n257, which covers the 26.5-29.5 GHz range, and as such, they were of the view that an ecosystem would be developed. TELUS indicated that although a full alignment with the U.S. was not required, a block edge should fall precisely at 27.5 GHz. Conversely, Nokia indicated that it was important to harmonize the Canadian band plan with the U.S. for roaming purposes and for cross-border coordination. Nokia added that although it was preferable to have frequency blocks that were multiples of 3GPP channel bandwidths, it was not essential.

49. In terms of preferred block sizes, comments varied. Bell and Huawei both favoured 200 MHz or larger blocks to maximize channel efficiency. TELUS was also of the view that larger blocks were preferable, although it did not provide a specific size. Rogers proposed 200 MHz blocks and two blocks of 25 MHz, to support competition by allowing a greater number of operators. Shaw indicated that blocks should be multiples of 3GPP channel bandwidths. SaskTel stated that there should be a variety of block sizes ranging from 100 MHz to 400 MHz. Cogeco preferred no larger than 100 MHz blocks. Ericsson submitted two band plan options with 18 blocks of 100 MHz and a single block of 50 MHz, with the possibility to aggregate up to 400 MHz of spectrum.

Discussion

50. 3GPP has three band classes that overlap in the 26 GHz and 28 GHz bands. Band class n257 covers the 26.5-29.5 GHz band, band class n258 covers the 24.25-27.5 GHz band, and band class n261 covers the 27.5-28.35 GHz band. All three band classes support channel bandwidths of 50, 100, 200 and 400 MHz and operate in the TDD duplex mode.

51. While harmonization with the U.S. continues to be an important factor in establishing Canadian band plans, ISED is of the view that complete alignment with the U.S. for the 28 GHz band is not favourable since it limits access in a given area to two licensees, which could artificially constrain competition in the wireless market. Furthermore, in the mmWave bands, a TDD access scheme will likely be used and coordination between operators will depend heavily on time synchronization of networks, and less on alignment of frequency channels. It is noted as well that using any of the current 3GPP bandwidths of 50, 100, 200 and 400 MHz with the U.S. 28 GHz band plan will result in two 25 MHz blocks potentially being unused.

52. ISED is of the view that a Canadian band plan based on multiples of 3GPP channel bandwidths would maximize the use of the spectrum, promote a more vibrant marketplace, facilitate international roaming, and enable Canadian consumers and operators to have access to multiple global ecosystems. In addition, a band plan consisting of unpaired blocks of 100 MHz will allow for the flexible use band plan to be aligned with the allocations for the FSS, EESS and SRS, which could reduce complexity when coordinating with these services. Therefore, ISED is adopting a band plan consisting of 18 blocks of 100 MHz with one remaining block of 50 MHz at the upper edge of the band, as shown in figure 2 below. This band plan will enable the deployment of equipment under 3GPP band classes n257, n258 and n261 in the relevant portions of the 26 GHz and 28 GHz bands.

53. Recognizing that a multitude of 5G services with differing bandwidth requirements are envisioned, different users may require additional bandwidth to deliver their services. These unpaired blocks may be combined to form larger blocks, subject to the future licensing framework consultation.

54. Industry standards applicable to this band are based on a TDD scheme. As such, ISED expects that most systems deployed in this band will be using TDD equipment and consequently, only TDD systems will be permitted at this time. ISED may consider other options through consultation with stakeholders to take into account future equipment ecosystem development, if necessary.

Decision

55. In the Consultation, ISED proposed that the eight FSS earth stations in the 28 GHz band licensed prior to the Consultation publication date, June 5, 2017, be permitted to continue to operate within the current parameters and conditions of their licences. In addition, terrestrial licensees with new flexible use licences in the same geographic areas would not be allowed to claim protection from these transmitting FSS earth stations.

56. In the Addendum, ISED stated that there were no EESS or SRS earth stations in the 26 GHz band deployed in Canada. As such, there was no need to address the treatment of EESS or SRS earth stations in this band at that time.

Summary of comments

57. BCBA, Bell, BSO, Ericsson, Huawei, Intel, Intelsat, RABC, Rogers, Samsung, SaskTel, Shaw, Telesat, ViaSat, and Xplornet supported grandfathering those FSS earth stations licensed prior to June 5, 2017.

58. Ericsson, Huawei and Samsung commented that grandfathering should not exclude detailed coordination changes for individual stations if needed in the future (e.g. to resolve interference issues or to ensure more efficient coexistence of the two systems). This was supported by Rogers in its reply comments.

59. Telesat, ViaSat, and Xplornet suggested that grandfathering should be extended to cover renewals, changes and expansions at, or in close proximity to, the same geographic area. Bell, Ericsson, Huawei, Rogers, and TELUS recommended that negotiated business arrangements be allowed and encouraged to remove barriers to terrestrial deployment.

60. TELUS proposed that existing FSS earth stations comply with several new conditions of licence, including providing earth station power flux density (PFD) contours, to ensure they impose minimal constraints on terrestrial stations and that ISED wait until geographic restrictions are established before finalizing approvals of pending FSS earth station applications. BSO and Telesat opposed TELUS' proposal. Telesat stated that although it makes sense to exchange the PFD contour with the operators they are coordinating with, they do not support general publication of the contours that may disclose commercially and competitively sensitive information to those with no coordination interest.

Discussion

61. In order to balance the need to ensure that spectrum is used efficiently and to recognize the infrastructure investments made by existing FSS earth station licensees, ISED will allow the continued operation of existing licensed FSS earth stations based on their current technical parameters for an extended period of time (a minimum of 10 years from the completion of the future competitive licensing process in the band). Prior to the renewal of flexible use licences, ISED will consult to reassess the spectrum requirements of the FSS earth stations and the terrestrial operations in the bands to determine if changes to these FSS earth station licences are required.

62. ISED intends to develop coordination rules between earth station licensees and flexible use licensees using the PFD contours as a mechanism to enable coexistence in this band. For example, the PFD contour could be used to develop a zone within which a flexible use system cannot claim protection from the earth station. Existing satellite earth station licensees will be required to submit PFD contours to ISED.

63. ISED is also of the view that some flexibility should be allowed to enable satellite operators to deploy the latest technologies to satisfy their business needs and may require modifications to their earth stations. Therefore, ISED will permit modifications to the earth stations listed in table A1 of annex A as long as the impact of these changes will not increase the potential for interference to flexible use systems. Any modification that would increase the potential for interference to flexible use systems will be treated as a new application and will be subject to the provisions in the licensing and coordination rules in effect at the time of the earth station licence application.

64. The method to determine the PFD contour, maximum radius of the PFD contour, details on permitted modifications, and any other pertinent information regarding the treatment of earth stations in table A1 of annex A will be established in consultation with stakeholders including the RABC. In the meantime, provisional rules are included in the Interim Guideline. If the value of the PFD contour adopted in the licensing or coordination rules is different than that included in the Interim Guideline, earth station licensees may be required to resubmit new PFD contours accordingly.

Decisions

65. In the Consultation, ISED proposed that earth stations with applications pending approval as of the publication date of the Consultation (June 5, 2017) be excluded from the proposed band sharing mechanism. In addition, terrestrial licensees with new flexible use licences in the same geographic areas would not be allowed to claim protection from these FSS earth stations.

66. Since the Consultation, two of these pending earth station applications have been approved (see table A2 in annex A) and licences have been issued.

Summary of comments

67. The majority of respondents supported grandfathering FSS earth stations with applications pending approval as of the publication date of the Consultation (BCBA, Bell, BSO, Ericsson, Huawei, Intel, Intelsat, Rogers, Samsung, SaskTel, Shaw, Telesat, ViaSat, and Xplornet). Comments in paragraphs 57 to 59 equally apply for the treatment of these earth stations.

68. RABC, SaskTel, and Shaw in their comments to the Consultation suggested that ISED work with applicants of FSS earth stations whose approvals were pending, to take into consideration proposed policy changes.

Discussion

69. For similar reasons discussed in section 5.4 and given the support from the majority of respondents, licensed FSS earth stations listed in table A2 in annex A, whose licence applications were pending approval on the date of publication of the Consultation (June 5, 2017) will be treated in the same manner as those that were licensed as of the date of the Consultation.

Decision

70. Since the release of the Consultation, ISED has approved 10 earth stations, listed in table A3 in annex A. In order to ensure coexistence with other services in the band, these earth station licences include a condition that requires compliance with the licensing and coordination rules for the mmWave bands, once adopted.

Summary of comments

71. Intelsat and ViaSat proposed to extend grandfathering to applications received prior to the date of publication of a decision. This was opposed by Shaw and TELUS in their reply comments.

Discussion

72. Earth stations in table A3 in annex A will be required to comply with the licensing and coordination rules in the future. However, depending on the needs of the future flexible use licensees in the affected licence areas, modifications to these earth stations may or may not be necessary. For example, through licensee-to-licensee discussion, these earth stations may not be required to make any adjustment to their operation.

73. Therefore, earth station licensees in table A3 in annex A are required to submit their PFD contours similar to the licensees listed in tables A1 and A2. Once these areas are licensed for flexible use, a reasonable amount of time will be given to these earth station licensees to implement measures to comply with the earth station licensing and coordination rules. ISED intends to consult on the amount of time allowed for these earth stations to comply with the rules and any other matters related to transition through a future licensing framework consultation. ISED expects affected flexible use and earth station licensees operating in the same band to work together collaboratively towards a possible mutually acceptable agreement to facilitate coexistence.

Decisions

85. In order to accommodate flexible use for terrestrial services in the band, ISED proposed that footnote C51 in the CTFA be modified as follows:

MOD C51 (CAN-17) The begin insertfrequencyend insert band begin deletion38.6end deletionbegin insert37.5end insert-40begin insert.0end insert GHz is being licensed for applications in the fixed begin insertand mobileend insert services, which will be given priority over fixed satellite service systems sharing this begin insertfrequency bandend insert begin deletionspectrumend deletion on a co-primary basis. Fixed-satellite service implementation in this begin insertfrequency bandend insert begin deletionspectrumend deletion will be limited to applications that will pose minimal constraints upon the deployment of fixed begin insertand mobileend insert service systems, such as a small number of large antennas for feeder links.

Summary of comments

86. BCBA, Bell, BSO, CASCA, Ciel, Cogeco, CSA, Ericsson, Facebook, GSA, Huawei, Intel, Intelsat, Microsoft, MobilExchange, Nokia, RABC, Rogers, Samsung, SaskTel, Shaw, 5G Americas, Telesat, TELUS, TeraGo, ViaSat, and Xplornet supported the changes proposed in the consultation to introduce flexible use licensing in the frequency band 37-40 GHz, including the consequential changes to the CTFA footnote C51, while continuing to allow use by the fixed-satellite service (space-to-Earth) in the frequency band 37.5-40.0 GHz.

87. BSO, RABC, SaskTel, Telesat, and ViaSat suggested improvements to the current wording in footnote C51 with respect to the antenna size since smaller antennas could be deployed for feeder links as satellite technology advances.

88. As mentioned in section 5.2, while ISED did not address the issue of HAPS in the Consultation, both Telesat and Facebook provided the same comments on HAPS use in the 38 GHz band as for the 28 GHz band.

Discussion

89. Similar to the 26 GHz and 28 GHz bands, ISED maintains that sharing between terrestrial and satellite services is feasible in the 37-40 GHz band. Given ISED's decision to facilitate sharing between terrestrial fixed and mobile services and the FSS in the 38 GHz band, consequential changes to footnote C51 are required to provide priority to both the fixed and mobile services over the FSS.

90. Footnote C51 afforded priority to the fixed service over the fixed-satellite service in the 37.5-40.0 GHz frequency band. In the Consultation and its Addendum, ISED proposed to extend this priority to the mobile service as well. As indicated in the summary of comments, this priority approach was favoured by a wide range of stakeholders. Consistent with the discussion for the 26 GHz and 28 GHz bands (see section 5.2 above), ISED will adopt an approach where continued sharing with FSS is supported in the 37.5-40 GHz bands; the deployment of satellite earth stations shall not be ubiquitous since ubiquitous satellite earth station deployment will likely impose constraints on the fixed and mobile services. To clarify this, footnote C51 will be amended to limit the FSS use in the band 37.5-40.0 GHz to low density deployments of earth stations. As well, in order to enable spectrum access by both flexible use systems and satellite services and recognizing the important and often critical role of satellite communications in providing connectivity in rural and remote areas such as the North, ISED intends to consult, through the licensing framework consultation, on a set of specific areas that could be afforded some flexibility when applying the licensing and coordination rules.

91. As noted in the Consultation, and further addressed in section 7.4, ISED recognizes that the frequency band 37-38 GHz is allocated to the SRS on a primary basis. In addition, the band 39.5-40 GHz is also allocated to the mobile-satellite service (MSS) on a primary basis, limited to the Government of Canada. ISED will consider SRS/MSS licence requests on a case-by-case basis and may consult on changes to the CTFA and relevant policies.

92. As discussed in section 5.2, any changes to allow the use of HAPS in these bands in Canada would be subject to a future consultation.

Decisions

93. In the Consultation, ISED sought comments on its proposal to adopt the same band plan in the 37.6-40 GHz range as the U.S. and defer the development of the band plan for the 37-37.6 GHz range to a later date. ISED proposed a band plan for the frequency band 37-40 GHz that included 12 blocks of 200 MHz from 37.6-40 GHz and consulted on the potential block size for the 37-37.6 GHz portion of the band.

Summary of comments

94. The majority of comments received, including those from 5G Americas, Bell, BCBA, BSO, DSA, Ericsson, GSA, Huawei, Intel, Intelsat, Microsoft, MobilExchange, Nokia, RABC, Rogers, SaskTel, Shaw, Telesat, TELUS, and Xplornet, supported the proposed band plan and delaying the development of a band plan for the 37-37.6 GHz frequency band to a later date.

95. TeraGo also agreed with the proposed band plan but with certain modifications to accommodate terrestrial incumbents. Samsung recommended adopting the proposed band plan and adopting 200 MHz blocks in the 37-37.6 GHz range as well. Cogeco supported the proposed band plan and suggested a licence-exempt approach in the 37-37.6 GHz range.

96. Bell and Rogers were of the view that the band plan should not preclude the deployment of any type of duplexing scheme. CBNL suggested a band plan with TDD in the lower portion of the band and FDD in upper portion. Microsoft was of the view that the 37.0-37.6 GHz range should be preserved as a single band.

Discussion

97. Both Canada and the U.S. have decided to permit flexible use services in this band. Therefore, in order to take advantage of a joint North American ecosystem, ISED agrees that a harmonized Canada/U.S. band plan would allow Canadians to benefit from economies of scale and the availability of 5G equipment in these bands.

98. ISED notes that the rules in the U.S. continue to evolve for the 37-37.6 GHz band and that they are considering making this portion available for shared access, where fixed and mobile terrestrial users would access this band through a coordination mechanism that is to be developed more fully through government/industry collaboration. As such, ISED has decided to defer the establishment of a Canadian band plan until a later date for this portion of the band. This view was supported by most commenters.

99. Following ISED 's consultation, the FCC decided to move from a band plan consisting of 200 MHz blocks to a band plan of 100 MHz blocks for the 37.6-40 GHz band. ISED is of the view that the establishment of unpaired 100 MHz blocks, aligned with the U.S. band plan, would be most beneficial to Canadians. Similar to the 26 GHz and 28 GHz bands, Canadian operators may aggregate multiple blocks to form large blocks, subject to the future licensing framework consultation, in order to suit their business needs. A 100 MHz block band plan would enable the deployment of 3GPP band class n260 equipment that supports 50, 100, 200 and 400 MHz channels in the 38 GHz band.

100. Similar to the 26 GHz and 28 GHz bands, industry standards applicable to the 37-40 GHz band are based on a TDD scheme for 5G. As such, ISED expects that most systems deployed in this band will be using TDD equipment, and consequently only TDD systems will be permitted at this time. ISED may consider other options through consultation with stakeholders including the RABC to take into account future equipment ecosystem development, if necessary.

Decision

101. As of the date of publication of this Decision, no FSS earth station licences have been issued. The licensing of future earth stations in the frequency band 37.5-40 GHz will be subject to the provisions of the licensing and coordination rules applicable at the time of the earth station application.

144. In the Consultation and the Addendum, ISED sought comments on its proposals to require site-by-site coordination between terrestrial flexible use and FSS, EESS and SRS earth stations when a pre-determined trigger was exceeded. ISED stated that the sharing mechanism in all three bands could be very similar. However, it was recognized that there would be a requirement for different coexistence measures for the 27.0-28.35 GHz band as it is used for transmitting satellite earth stations and for the bands 26.5-27.0 GHz and 37.5-40.0 GHz as they are used for receiving satellite earth stations. ISED also noted that due to the different nature of the satellite services (i.e. FSS, EESS and SRS as shown in figures 4 and 5 above), specific parameters (e.g. specific value of separation distance) to enable coexistence may be different.

145. ISED put forward in the Consultation that the FCC's method for limiting the areas where satellite earth stations can be deployed is not appropriate in the Canadian context. ISED pointed out that existing Canadian space teleports are deployed near fibre links that are close to urban boundaries. ISED also considered that earth station siting must also take into account access to a power source and road accessibility in order to deploy, perform maintenance, upgrade and repair earth stations. ISED expressed concern that, although the FCC's geographic restrictions might ensure the future deployment of flexible use systems in core urban areas and near major infrastructure, they might also unnecessarily deny satellite operators access to locations where that would enable the deployment of Canadian space teleports in both urban and rural areas. As such, ISED sought comments on whether there should be restrictions on the geographic areas in which new earth stations can be deployed and invited proposals.

Summary of comments

Satellite earth station siting

146. With respect to geographical restriction zones, wireless providers and manufacturers were of the view that earth stations would best be limited to geographic areas outside the most populated areas where terrestrial flexible use stations are likely to be deployed. Satellite operators, with the exception of Intelsat, ViaSat and Xplornet, did not oppose the idea of geographical restriction zones but expressed concerns that overly restrictive limitations like the ones that the FCC introduced are likely to have an adverse impact on satellite operators' ability to deliver satellite services in Canada and that a balanced spectrum sharing approach is preferable. They suggested that a technical study by ISED and the RABC would be necessary before the specific parameters of such restrictions could be properly defined and applied.

Coordination of FSS earth stations and flexible use stations

147. The majority of comments were in favour of site-by-site coordination. However, satellite operators argued that the coordination process should strike an equal balance between satellite and terrestrial users.

148. Rogers, with support from Cogeco, proposed site-by-area coordination, where the site relates to the earth station and the area relates to the flexible use terrestrial stations. They expressed the view that site-by-site coordination would introduce undue overhead costs for both satellite and terrestrial operators.

149. Telesat and Intelsat suggested an FCFS regime, where flexible use stations would need to coordinate with earth stations in operation and vice-versa. This was opposed by Bell. Rogers indicated that it was not opposed to an FCFS approach outside the proposed restriction zones.

150. BCBA, Bell, BSO, Ciel, Cogeco, Ericsson, Huawei, Intel, Intelsat, RABC, Rogers, Samsung, SaskTel, Shaw and Telesat, ViaSat, and Xplornet supported having a coordination trigger.

151. In general, Bell, BSO, Cogeco, Intel, Intelsat, RABC, Rogers, Samsung, SaskTel and Telesat, and ViaSat recommended the use of a PFD coordination trigger. For the 27-28.35 GHz band, BCBA, Huawei and Xplornet favoured a distance coordination trigger. For the 37.5-40 GHz band, Nokia reaffirmed its support for the FCC approach for the 37.5-40 GHz band; BSO and Xplornet noted a one-size-fits-all approach might not be appropriate; and both Intel and TELUS were of the view that deciding on a coordination trigger was premature at this time.

152. With respect to the coordination trigger for the 27-28.35 GHz band, Ericsson, GSA, Nokia and TELUS advocated for the PFD coordination trigger adopted by the FCC: -77.6 dBm/m²/MHz at 10 m above the ground. Ericsson further stated that the PFD coordination trigger should be matched with an aggregate I/N value in the range of -6 to -8 dB. Intel proposed three separate PFD coordination triggers: one for base stations, one for the CPE and one for mobile stations.

153. Bell, BSO, Cogeco, Intelsat, RABC, Rogers, Samsung, SaskTel, and Telesat recommended that the PFD coordination trigger be determined through a study. With respect to the coordination trigger for the 27-28.35 GHz band, Intelsat, Rogers and Samsung further suggested using the FCC value as a starting point. With respect to the coordination trigger for the 37.5-40 GHz band, Bell recommended that the 3GPP report on coexistence studies could be used as a starting point, while Rogers and Ericsson considered the PFD coordination trigger adopted by the FCC for the 28 GHz frequency band could be used as a starting point.

Mitigation techniques

154. BCBA, Bell, BSO, Ciel, Ericsson, GSA, Intel, Intelsat, RABC, Rogers, SaskTel, Telesat, TELUS, and ViaSat agreed that although shielding was an effective measure to mitigate interference, flexibility in terms of mitigation techniques to facilitate sharing between flexible use stations and satellite earth stations was preferable to mandating a specific technical rule that might not be the most efficient or most cost effective option for every scenario.

Discussion

155. In the short- to medium-term, flexible use systems will most likely be deployed primarily in more densely populated areas such as urban or sub-urban areas, or in venues where a large number of people congregate, such as airports and stadiums. Moreover, flexible use systems could be deployed along major highways and roadways.

156. Given the limited transmission range of systems in the mmWave spectrum, combined with new technologies being developed for flexible use systems, ISED continues to be of the view that with sound engineering practices and cooperation among the involved parties, sharing between satellite and flexible use services in the mmWave bands can be facilitated.

157. ISED examined how to implement geographic restrictions based on pre-defined urban areas, such as the Census Metropolitan Areas (CMA) or Census Agglomerations (CA) as defined in Statistics Canada’s Statistical Area Classification, as boundaries within which the deployment of satellite earth stations may be excluded or limited. ISED determined that such exclusion zone definitions would not strike an appropriate balance to meet the needs of both satellite and flexible use systems. The adoption of hard boundaries based on CMAs or CAs could be overly restrictive to the deployment of satellite in some scenarios, or result in constraining the flexible use services in others.

158. ISED then re-examined more closely the siting rules adopted by the FCC and is of the view that a variation of the U.S. approach can be adapted to the Canadian context and offer the flexibility required to strike a balance between the needs of both satellite and flexible use systems. Taking a similar approach will allow ISED to develop coordination rules that take into account factors such as existing population and potential growth, proximity to major infrastructures, and major highways and roadways. Therefore, ISED will develop coordination rules using a population-impact based approach to enable coexistence between future flexible use stations and FSS earth stations operating in the frequency bands 27.0-28.35 GHz and 37.5-40.0 GHz, as well as EESS and SRS earth stations operating in the frequency bands 26.5-27.0 GHz.

159. Specifically, the population-impact based approach will be based on setting limits on earth station deployments such that deployment would not affect a material amount of the population in a given flexible use licence area. For transmitting earth stations, exclusion zones where flexible use systems would not be able to claim protection could be established. For receiving earth stations, protection zones could be established where flexible use systems would only be able to deploy upon successful coordination with the earth station licensees. In order to establish these zones, ISED will require earth station applicants to submit transmit or receive contours as appropriate.

160. In order to facilitate sharing between flexible use and satellite operators in the 26 GHz, 28 GHz and 38 GHz bands, ISED recognizes that mitigation techniques such as shielding, power reduction and variation of the elevation angle will have to be an integral part of the coordination process. ISED agrees that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to mitigate interference and that it is in the interest of all parties involved to have the flexibility to select the mitigation technique(s) that best suit their needs and unique situation. Consequently, ISED will not mandate specific mitigation techniques.

161. Under CPC-2-6-01, coexistence of fixed terrestrial stations and domestic FSS earth stations is addressed prior to licensing through coordination on a site-by-site basis. The licensing requirements specified in CPC-2-6-01 for earth station application will continue to apply, including site-by-site coordination with existing fixed terrestrial stations.

162. As mentioned, coordination rules for mmWave spectrum will be established in the near future. In the meantime, the Interim Guideline, discussed in section 5.2 and section 6.2, will include provisions to enable the deployment of earth stations while ensuring they would not constrain the deployment of future flexible use systems. Also, ISED agrees that certain parameters such as the PFD value or distance to trigger coordination could benefit from further discussion with industry stakeholders. The Interim Guideline parameters will be used as starting points to initiate discussion with stakeholders through the RABC in order to establish the licensing and/or coordination rules.

Decisions

163. Space stations operating in the 28 GHz band receive transmissions from earth stations and, as a result, are also currently subject to the interference from the emissions of fixed terrestrial systems deployed in the band. ISED recognized in the Consultation that flexible use services will lead to ubiquitous and widespread use of this frequency band by the flexible use services. An increase in the number of terrestrial stations may also, on the aggregate, have the potential to increase the magnitude of the emissions received by space stations from terrestrial stations in this band. As such, ISED sought comments on whether it should impose any limits on the aggregate emissions of terrestrial stations.

Summary of comments

164. The views were split on the issue of limits on the aggregate power level of terrestrial flexible use systems in the 27.0-28.35 GHz band. BCBA, Bell, Ericsson, GSA, Huawei, Intel, RABC, Rogers, Samsung, SaskTel, Shaw, TELUS, and Xplornet declared no aggregate limits were required. On the other hand, BSO, Intelsat, Telesat, RABC, SaskTel, and ViaSat were of the view that studies on limits on skyward transmission from individual terrestrial stations are more appropriate since such limits are easier to implement and enforce than aggregate limits. Ciel believed it was premature to decide on whether emission limits are required.

Discussion

165. Similar to sharing with ISS in the 26.5-27.5 GHz band, ISED expects that advanced technologies in the mmWave bands will lessen the potential of interference to FSS space stations. For example, it is expected that 5G base stations and user terminals will employ dynamic beam forming with very narrow beam widths, which would reduce the chance of pointing directly toward satellite receivers.

166. In addition, it is expected that most mobile handset use will be indoors, which would significantly attenuate the propagation of these signals towards space stations. Furthermore, as indicated by stakeholders in their comments, ITU studies on the impact of 5G systems on FSS indicate that harmful interference to space stations due to aggregate emissions from 5G systems is not likely. Also, the FCC concluded that there was no need to establish any regulatory limits on the aggregate power levels produced by flexible use operations.

167. ISED considers there is no need to impose aggregate emission limits to flexible use stations in the 27.0-28.35 GHz band. Such limits would be difficult to implement and enforce. However, if necessary, ISED may review whether to apply technical measures to ensure coexistence between flexible use systems and FSS systems in this frequency band in the future.

Decision