Decision on New Access Licensing Framework, Changes to Subordinate Licensing and White Space to Support Rural and Remote Deployment

1. Through the release of this document, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED), on behalf of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry (the Minister), announces the decisions resulting from the consultation undertaken in Canada Gazette notice SLPB-004-21, Consultation on New Access Licensing Framework, Changes to Subordinate Licensing and White Space to Support Rural and Remote Deployment (the Consultation).

2. All comments and reply comments received on the Consultation are available on ISED’s Spectrum management and telecommunications website. Comments and/or reply comments were received from:

• 6Harmonics Inc. (6Harmonics)
• Advanced Interactive Canada Inc. (Advintive)
• Association of Equipment Manufacturers
• Bell Mobility Inc. (Bell)
• British Columbia Broadband Association (BCBA)
• Canadian Association of Wireless Internet Service Providers (CanWISP)
• Canadian Canola Growers Association
• Canadian Cattlemen’s Association and the National Cattle Feeders’ Association
• Canadian Communication Systems Alliance, Inc. (CCSA)
• Canadian Electricity Association (CEA)
• Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA)
• Canadian Horticultural Council (CHC) and Canadian Produce Marketing Association (CPMA)
• Clearwater County
• Cogeco Communications Inc. (Cogeco)
• Com Com Services
• Communications Télésignal Inc. (Communications Télésignal)
• Dr. Gregory Taylor
• Eastern Ontario Regional Network (EORN)
• Eastlink
• Ecotel Inc. (Ecotel)
• Eeyou Communications Network (ECN)
• Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM)
• Fertilizer Canada
• First Broadband
• First Mile Connectivity Consortium (FMCC)
• Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC)
• Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT)
• Independent Telecommunications Providers Association (ITPA)
• Internet Society and Mozilla
• Iristel Inc. (Iristel)
• James Bay Cree Communications Society (JBCCS)
• Kris Joseph and Michael B. McNally
• Lytton Area Wireless Society (Lyttonnet)
• Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft)
• Motorola Solutions (Motorola)
• Québecor Média (Québecor)
• Railway Association of Canada (RAC)
• RED Technologies
• Redline Communications Group Inc. (Redline)
• Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (Rogers)
• Rural Municipalities of Alberta
• SaskTel
• SeaBoard Group
• Shaw Communications Inc. (Shaw)
• Sprig Learning
• Spuzzum First Nation
• SSi Canada (SSi)
• Syngenta
• TECHNATION
• TELUS Communications Inc. (TELUS)
• TerreStar Solutions Inc. (TerreStar)
• Twincomm
• Union des producteurs agricoles (UPA)
• Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association (WCWGA)
• Wilson Engineering
• Xplore (submitted as Xplornet Communications Inc.)

3. The Minister, through the Department of Industry Act, the Radiocommunication Act and the Radiocommunication Regulations, with due regard to the objectives of the Telecommunications Act, is responsible for spectrum management in Canada. As such, the Minister is responsible for developing national policies for spectrum utilization and ensuring effective management of the radio frequency spectrum.

4. Pursuant to the Radiocommunication Act, the Minister has the authority to plan the allocation and use of spectrum, to issue spectrum licences, to fix the terms and conditions of licences, and to amend the terms and conditions of any spectrum licence.

5. ISED is committed to the objective that all Canadian consumers, businesses and public institutions have access to the latest wireless telecommunications services in a competitive market. A robust wireless telecommunications industry drives the adoption and use of digital technologies and enhances the productivity of the Canadian economy. Wireless services are an important part of Canadians’ lives, whether they are accessing multi-media applications, conducting business while on the move, connecting with family and friends, or managing their finances. In recent years, these services have become increasingly integrated in society. Canadians expect them to be high quality, available in every region of the country, and competitively priced.

6. Spectrum is a critical component for wireless service providers. ISED views the release of spectrum as an opportunity to enable existing and new providers to expand services and enhance connectivity in underserved areas and support continued competition in the market. In the case of Indigenous communities, businesses and service providers, becoming a spectrum licence holder could support economic reconciliation and provide the ability to best serve the unique needs of their communities.

7. Greater access to spectrum is also expected to support the creation and expansion of new services and applications in vertical industries, many of which (such as agriculture, manufacturing and mining) are located in rural and remote areas. These industries may benefit from specialized uses, such as private networks, which enable a wide range of automated, robotic and remote operations such as real-time monitoring, dispatching and emergency notifications. While private networks would also enable operators to develop new business opportunities, these networks could also enhance safety and security for people, assets and infrastructure.

8. In developing this decision, ISED was guided by the Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada (SPFC), which states that the objective of the spectrum program is to maximize the economic and social benefits that Canadians derive from the use of spectrum. This objective and the enabling guidelines listed in the SPFC remain relevant for guiding ISED in delivering its spectrum management mandate.

9. The Government of Canada is also committed to promoting the delivery of broadband services to rural and remote areas across the country. In 2019, High-Speed Access for All: Canada's Connectivity Strategy (the Connectivity Strategy) was launched. The Connectivity Strategy aims to make speeds of at least 50 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 10 Mbps upload available to all Canadian homes and businesses, and to improve mobile wireless access from coast to coast to coast. To reach these objectives, ISED is examining approaches to support and encourage service provision in rural and remote areas.

10. As indicated in the 2021 Speech from the Throne, as well as in the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry’s 2021 mandate letter, reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples is a Government-wide directive.

11. The Minister’s 2021 mandate letter also called for the implementation of a “use it or lose it” approach to accelerate broadband delivery and require those that have purchased rights to build broadband to meet broadband access milestones or risk losing their spectrum rights. This access licensing framework will be a key step in addressing this call to action by creating a framework under which unused spectrum could be put to use by other parties.

12. In the context of this approach to connectivity, ISED's policy objectives for this decision are to:

• facilitate the deployment and timely availability of services across the country, with an emphasis on rural and remote regions
• foster investment and the evolution of wireless networks by enabling the development of innovative and emerging applications
• support sustained competition in the provision of wireless services so that consumers and businesses benefit from greater choice and competitive prices
• facilitate access to spectrum for Indigenous communities, businesses and service providers

13. ISED recognizes the importance of releasing spectrum and facilitating access to a combination of services to improve coverage and economic development across the country, including in rural and remote regions. Further, and given Canada's varied geographic and topographical challenges, ISED is committed to leveraging a variety of technologies that will be needed to achieve 50/10 Mbps speeds throughout Canada, as identified as national target speeds in the Connectivity Strategy. Canadians living in rural areas depend on fast and reliable connectivity as much as those in urban areas.

14. According to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's (CRTC) Communications Market Reports, in 2021, only 62.0% of rural households had access to speeds of at least 50/10 Mbps, leaving 1.2 million rural households without 50/10 Mbps coverage. In contrast, 99.2% of urban households had access to speeds of at least 50/10 Mbps.

15. There are also significant gaps in mobile connectivity. From the CRTC's reports, while 99.4% of Canadians had access to Long-Term Evolution (LTE) mobile networks and 87.8% of Canadians had access to the higher speed services provided by 5G networks in 2021, coverage is uneven, with rural and remote areas in particular sometimes having slower speeds or no service at all. For example, 5G coverage in 2021 was 95.2% in urban population centres compared to only 55.6% in rural population centres and 37.8% in First Nations reserve areas.

16. In order to reach the national target of all Canadians having access to at least 50/10 Mbps, to support improved mobile coverage, and to enable the economic development of rural and remote areas to their full potential, a mix of connectivity solutions will be required, including fibre, satellite, and terrestrial wireless technologies. ISED is working to achieve this target through several initiatives, including the Universal Broadband Fund, the Consultation on a Policy and Licensing Framework for Spectrum in the 26, 28 and 38 GHz Bands (the mmWave Consultation), the Decision on a Non-Competitive Local Licensing Framework, Including Spectrum in the 3900-3980 MHz Band and Portions of the 26, 28 and 38 GHz Bands (the Non-Competitive Local Licensing Framework) and the ongoing imposition and enforcement of spectrum deployment requirements. Nonetheless, ISED recognizes that providing additional access to spectrum in bands with robust 5G equipment ecosystems can allow for a wider provision of services, particularly in rural and remote areas.

17. Spectrum sharing arrangements can also be used to contribute to ISED’s objectives and targets, but can involve various challenges, such as technical coordination between users. However, properly designed sharing frameworks can allow for spectrum to be efficiently used to support demand, improving access to spectrum for multiple service providers and end-users, in areas where sufficient spectrum is available to meet demand. ISED notes that in rural and remote areas, some of the challenges associated with spectrum sharing are more easily addressed given the lower population density, the lower number of licensees in a given area, and the greater availability of unused spectrum.

18. The decisions herein are part of ISED’s broader approach to support spectrum sharing. Through the mmWave Consultation, ISED proposed to auction those bands for flexible use 5G, which authorize both mobile and fixed operations, to share the millimetre wave bands with other services such as fixed satellite service. In other recent licensing frameworks, such as those for the 600 MHz, 3500 MHz and 3800 MHz bands, ISED has issued, or indicated its intention to issue, flexible use licences, and has enabled spectrum sharing with existing services when practical. Further, in May 2021, through SMSE-006-21, Decision on the Technical and Policy Framework for Licence-Exempt Use in the 6 GHz Band, ISED made 1200 MHz of spectrum available for Radio Local Area Network (RLAN) applications, including allowing higher-power RLAN operations in 950 MHz of that spectrum in which sharing with incumbents will be managed through automated frequency coordination systems.

19. Taking into account the increasing importance of connectivity in Indigenous, rural and remote communities, ongoing developments in the telecommunications and other industries, and comments from stakeholders, ISED is introducing policies that will address key challenges related to supporting innovation and deployment in these communities. First, ISED is implementing a new supplemental licensing process, referred to as “access licensing,” and introducing an Indigenous priority window for access spectrum licences. Second, ISED is applying access licensing in an initial selection of frequency bands, specifically the 800 MHz (Cellular) band, the 1850-1910 MHz and 1930-1990 MHz Personal Communications Services (PCS) band, and the 900 MHz Land Mobile Radio (LMR) band. Additionally, ISED is updating white space and remote rural broadband systems (RRBS) policy frameworks to reflect recent developments and clarify the use of the spectrum.

20. In the Consultation, ISED sought comments on its proposal to implement a new supplementary licensing process through the access licensing framework, which will facilitate access to unused spectrum in rural and remote areas and support the provision or expansion of broadband services and new industrial or commercial applications in these areas. ISED further proposed to make both spectrum (area-based) and radio (site-based) licences available through the framework.

Summary of comments

21. BCBA, CCSA, CEA, CFA, CanWISP, Clearwater County, Cogeco, Communications Télésignal, Dr Gregory Taylor, EORN, Eastlink, Ecotel, FCM, the Internet Society and Mozilla, Iristel, JBCCS, Motorola, Redline, SeaBoard Group, Syngenta and TerreStar all supported ISED’s proposal to implement an access licensing framework. Other stakeholders, including ECN, ITPA and RMA, expressed support for the framework, but suggested possible modifications. Québecor also supported access licensing, but urged caution in its implementation so that ISED could support the expansion of new services while still protecting existing ones. TELUS was supportive of the framework but suggested it did not go far enough.

22. Xplore supported access licensing, but noted that the framework should instead be used as an enforcement tool by ISED. Xplore also argued that access licensing would strip a licensee of its spectrum despite not having failed to meet any of its conditions of licence, and as such, it should instead be used as a potential consequence of failing to meet conditions of licence.

23. Many respondents brought attention to concerns related to access to spectrum by Indigenous Peoples. FMCC supported the framework but suggested that ISED take a greater focus on Treaty and Indigenous Rights and economic reconciliation when developing spectrum policies. Similarly, while supporting the framework, Advintive also suggested that Indigenous communities, small Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) and community groups should have priority access to spectrum made available under the access licensing framework. Spuzzum First Nation noted the importance of improving Indigenous access as well as suggested that ISED should give priority to Indigenous groups to access spectrum over Indigenous lands.

24. Bell, Rogers, SaskTel, Shaw and SSi opposed the access licensing framework. Bell noted that incumbent licensees did not previously have Tier 5 deployment requirements as a condition of licence, and argued that the framework would add conditions to their licences that had not previously existed. Additionally, Bell did not believe ISED’s rationale to propose the implementation of the framework was sufficient, and argued that set-asides, spectrum caps, and spectrum that is available on an all-come, all-served basis, serve the same goals. It also argued that existing subordination frameworks were effective existing tools tackling the same problems, and cautioned that ISED should wait to see how private networks impact market forces before implementing policies to support their expansion. Rogers also strongly opposed ISED’s proposal, signalling doubt over how the framework would achieve ISED’s goals. Rogers indicated support for the existing subordination framework, and argued that any secondary access to exclusively licensed spectrum should remain subject to commercial negotiations to protect licensing rights and current and future deployments by existing licensees. Similar to Rogers, SSi argued that before implementing access licensing, ISED should first improve the process for subordination. Finally, SaskTel argued that the proposed framework constitutes a rewriting of existing licences rather than just the conditions of licence and believed that ISED should consider future deployment plans of licensees before implementing an access licensing framework.

25. Lyttonnet cautioned that if access licensing is implemented, it should not pose a significant or excess reporting burden to small providers. TECHNATION was also concerned over the possible implications of access licensing on the establishment of subordination agreements in Tier 5 service areas, and it wanted to ensure that the framework wouldn't compete with existing subordination agreements in unforeseen ways.

Discussion

26. Some wireless service providers have expressed the view that insufficient access to spectrum to support wireless broadband is impeding the expansion and improvement of services for consumers and businesses. These stakeholders contend that unused spectrum in rural and remote areas could be used to provide such broadband services.

27. New and emerging wireless applications, including private networks and Internet of Things (IoT), are also driving demand for spectrum. Stakeholders, including industrial users such as mine and factory operators, agricultural users, as well as private network service providers, have indicated that access to suitable spectrum is a key challenge in unlocking the benefits of these emerging and innovative applications.

28. Increasingly, regulators are recognizing the benefits of spectrum sharing, an approach that allows for a more flexible distribution of spectrum between different services, applications and users within a given area.

29. ISED recognizes that a number of respondents opposed the proposed access licensing regime. Concerns were raised that access licensing would introduce stricter conditions of licence, particularly for existing licensees. ISED, however, is of the view that incentivizing greater deployment in bands where access licensing is implemented is key in achieving the policy goals of facilitating deployment in rural and remote areas. Implementing access licensing in rural and remote areas with unused spectrum may result in two potential outcomes: either existing licensees expand their current deployment, offering new or improved service to underserved communities, or the area becomes available for access licensing where it can be served by another entity planning to provide new or improved services.

30. Other commenters argued that the existing subordination regime is an effective tool to address the policy concerns raised by ISED in the introduction of the access licensing regime for commercial mobile spectrum licences. However, ISED notes that the subordination regime has been in place for all commercial mobile bands for many years and there remains unused spectrum in many rural and remote areas. As such, ISED is of the view that access licensing is an additional tool to further facilitate access to spectrum in rural and remote areas where existing commercial mobile spectrum licensees have not deployed.

31. ISED is also of the view that also applying access licensing for bands where access radio licences are issued could enable new broadband use cases in rural and remote areas. For example, site-specific access radio licensing can be used to support private broadband networks and other industry use cases within bands that have traditionally been used for narrowband applications such as land mobile radio. It also opens an additional pathway to support deployment and provide service in areas which have, until now, been underserved or unserved.

32. ISED is of the view that an access licensing regime is necessary to facilitate access to unused spectrum in rural and remote areas, and to promote the efficient use of spectrum alongside other existing spectrum management tools. Access licensing will support the provision or expansion of broadband services and new industrial or commercial applications in these areas, creating opportunities for private network use cases, and generating greater coverage for underserved areas, such as northern and Indigenous communities.

33. Given these benefits, combined with the general support from the majority of respondents, through this decision ISED is establishing an access licensing framework that will allow the issuance of access spectrum licences and access radio licences in rural and remote areas where there is unused spectrum. ISED will determine the bands where the access licensing framework is applied on a band-by-band basis through consultation. This framework will initially apply to specific frequency bands, as discussed in section 7, below. It can be applied to other bands in the future, subject to future consultation.

Decision

5.1 Access licensing approach

34. Through the Consultation, ISED sought comments on its proposal to issue access spectrum licences and access radio licences on a first-come, first-served (FCFS) basis.

Summary of comments

35. BCBA, CCSA, CEA, CanWISP, Motorola, TerreStar, Twincomm and Xplore all supported an FCFS licensing approach. Additionally, Bell and SaskTel supported the FCFS approach while reiterating their overall opposition to access licensing.

36. Cogeco and Lyttonnet supported the use of an FCFS licensing approach on the condition that additional criteria such as deployment obligations are implemented to avoid squatting. Similarly, Communications Télésignal broadly supported the proposal while noting a specific concern that there should be a method to ensure that spectrum acquired through the framework is actually put to use. RMA supported an FCFS licensing approach, but indicated that an applicant’s ability to meet deployment requirements should be evaluated prior to the issuance of an access licence. TECHNATION noted that the use of an FCFS model should depend on the band, the area, the use cases, and the deployment conditions of the band being licensed, and be used only if deemed appropriate. Dr. Gregory Taylor argued that ISED should implement a vetting process to ensure access licensees have a clear plan.

37. UPA argued that an FCFS approach could be effective but that priority should be given to smaller local service providers before the spectrum is offered to the national service providers. FCM suggested an option where ISED would have a window to receive and rank all applications against a set of criteria to ensure that spectrum would go to the most suitable party, rather than to the group that applied most quickly. Similarly, ITPA indicated that it did not fundamentally oppose an FCFS approach, but noted that demand could exceed supply in some areas. In that scenario, it argued that ISED should implement a scoring system to ensure equitable access to spectrum, followed by an FCFS licensing approach in lower demand areas. Kris Joseph and Michael B. McNally noted that an FCFS model can be useful for experienced users such as telecommunications service providers, but added that the access licensing model does not by itself support rural and remote communities, Indigenous governments and public good-orientated users to become self-sufficient with regard to deploying telecommunication services.

38. Some groups proposed the use of an Indigenous priority access window that would give priority to Indigenous communities and/or providers to obtain access licences before they are offered to other potential wireless service providers. Those who suggested a priority access window or other provisions to support Indigenous communities included ECN, FMCC, the Internet Society and Mozilla, JBCCS and SSi. Comments discussing an Indigenous priority window are considered further in section 6.

39. Redline noted that its preference would be the use of an all-come, all-served model managed by database administrators; however, if ISED decided to allow only a single user in each access licence, it noted an FCFS model would be appropriate. TELUS indicated it would support the proposal so long as it was demonstrated that demand would not exceed the supply. Ecotel also indicated some concerns that demand could exceed supply. If that were the case, it argued that ISED should have a window for parties to flag their interest and that if demand is anticipated to exceed supply, an alternative approach could be pursued.

40. Iristel did not support an FCFS approach as it also expects demand to exceed supply. To address this, it suggested ISED use an intake period to gauge interest and evaluate applications against a set of criteria published by ISED. Rogers indicated that instead of an FCFS system, access licensing should be a secondary option to subordination and only be granted if an applicant attempted to receive a subordination and was denied.

Discussion

41. Given that the access licensing framework will be implemented in rural and remote areas where there is unused spectrum, ISED does not expect that demand will exceed supply for access spectrum licences or access radio licences. As discussed in the Framework for Spectrum Auctions in Canada, ISED typically releases spectrum using an FCFS licensing approach where the demand for spectrum is not expected to exceed the supply and a competitive process is not required.

42. In addition, consistent with the Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada, ISED is of the view that an FCFS approach can minimize administrative burden and make spectrum available for use in a timely fashion. Given the majority of respondents supported the use of the FCFS model for access licences, combined with the immediate need for improved connectivity in rural and remote areas, and the interest previously expressed by stakeholders seeking access to spectrum to deploy services using existing technologies, ISED is of the view that an FCFS approach for granting access licences will allow for faster deployment of new services where they are needed.

43. Given the above considerations, ISED will issue both access spectrum licences and access radio licences using an FCFS licensing approach.

Decision

5.2 Areas where access licences will be available

44. In the Consultation, ISED sought comments on its proposal to apply access licensing in rural and remote Tier 5 service areas, as defined by ISED’s Service areas for competitive licensing, where existing licensees have not deployed services.

Summary of comments

45. BCBA, CCSA, CanWISP, Cogeco, Communications Télésignal, ECN, FMCC, ITPA, the Internet Society and Mozilla, Québecor, RMA, Syngenta, TerreStar, Twincomm and Xplore supported ISED’s proposal to use Tier 5 areas as the basis for identifying where access licensing would apply. CanWISP added that this proposal would also ensure that metropolitan and urban licence areas, where investment and service levels are high, would not be adversely affected by access licensing. Bell noted that Tier 5 service areas can be effectively used to identify possible locations for access licences.

46. Clearwater County noted some Tier 5 service areas, such as 5-521 Edmonton, are considered metropolitan/urban but contain numerous acreages that can only be served by WISPs. With ISED’s proposal, WISPs could not use the proposed access licensing process to gain access to spectrum to provide services in these areas. Similarly, Kris Joseph and Michael B. McNally noted that there are a number of urban tiers with secondary population centres that could be considered rural, while other rural areas had relatively large population centres. They pointed to specific examples where a small population centre, which could be traditionally viewed as a rural township, may be found within an urban Tier 5 area and, as such, would be excluded from access licensing. They argued that this issue could be exacerbated along rural tiers that border urban tiers and vice-versa. Lyttonnet also noted that there are some tier areas where the majority of the population lives in a small portion of the tier and as such, access spectrum licences should be able to apply to areas smaller than Tier 5. Both TELUS and Cogeco argued that ISED should expand access licensing to include urban and metropolitan tiers, rather than limiting the licences to only rural and remote areas. Conversely, Québecor urged ISED to ignore these calls to expand access licensing to urban and metropolitan areas.

47. Others such as Advintive, Ecotel, Rogers, SaskTel and SSi disagreed with ISED’s proposal. Advintive believed the use of Tier 5 service areas as the basis of determining availability of rural and remote areas was a mistake by ISED, arguing instead that areas should be defined similar to the model of broadcast TV coverage areas. Ecotel did not believe that Tier 5 areas were appropriate nor did it think access licensing should be limited to rural and remote areas. SaskTel indicated serious concerns with ISED’s proposal to use rural and remote tiers, with specific concerns over its application to areas adjacent to a tier with existing deployment. It indicated concerns that making these rural and remote tier areas available for access licensing could result in the inefficient use of the spectrum.

Discussion

48. The Service areas for competitive licensing outlines the general service areas that are used by ISED for the purpose of issuing spectrum licences. The defined geographic areas have been categorized under "service area tiers," which are based on Statistics Canada's Census Divisions and Subdivisions.

49. Tier 5 service areas were designed based on a set of principles, including recognizing geographic differences, fostering demand, maintaining technological and competitive neutrality, minimizing potential interference, and taking local considerations into account, all of which align with the objectives of the proposed access licensing framework. Additionally, the Tier 5 service areas provide a clear geographic boundary for rural and remote areas.

50. Given the above, ISED will use rural and remote Tier 5 service areas as the basis for determining the areas in which it will apply the access licensing framework. As such, access licences will be made available in those Tier 5 areas where ISED has determined there is unused spectrum in rural and remote areas. ISED will determine the rural and remote areas where there is unused spectrum, on a band-by-band basis, taking into account where existing primary or subordinate licensees are offering services, and the potential impact to these stations. ISED will not take into account planned deployments when determining which Tier 5 service areas will be made available for access licensing, unless otherwise specified when making the band available.

Decision

5.3 Principles for identifying bands for access licensing framework

51. ISED sought comments on its proposed principles to be used when considering spectrum licensed or radio licensed bands where the access licensing framework will apply, and invited alternative principles that could be considered. The principles that ISED proposed were to consider bands that have:

• the potential to support wireless broadband, private networks, and/or industry vertical use cases
• an existing licensing framework for flexible or mobile use
• an available or clear path to an available equipment ecosystem
• sufficient amounts of unused spectrum in rural and remote areas
• the potential for coexistence between existing users and potential access licensees
• had adequate time for existing licensees to deploy (e.g. initial licence term has lapsed), or time permitted to meet initial deployment requirement has lapsed in the case of bands that were auctioned

Summary of comments

52. Advintive, CanWISP, CCSA, CEA, Clearwater County, Cogeco, Communications Télésignal, Eastlink, Ecotel, ECN, the Internet Society and Mozilla, Iristel, Kris Joseph and Michael B. McNally, Motorola, Québecor, TELUS, TerreStar, WCWGA and Xplore broadly supported the principles outlined by ISED in the Consultation. TerreStar emphasized the importance of conducting a public consultation while supporting the principles more broadly.

53. Advintive, Cogeco, Redline and TELUS argued that all unused commercial spectrum should be available to be considered for access licensing in rural and remote areas. TELUS similarly argued for the expansion of access licensing to all bands. CEA added that the spectrum should be aligned with 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) band plans and that ISED should consider any band that is underutilized in urban, rural and remote areas. Similarly, WCWGA suggested that access licensing should be available to anyone who is willing, able and committed to build the infrastructure and deploy the spectrum, and suggested the expansion of use it or lose it policies to all spectrum once initial licence terms are over.

54. CFA, CHC and CPMA did not specifically support or oppose the proposed principles, but argued for the use of more stringent deployment conditions in all rural and remote areas and bands.

55. Eastlink and Québecor broadly supported ISED’s proposal, but also cautioned that a band should be undeployed for a significant period of time before being subject to access licensing. Similarly, Ecotel supported the principles but also had issues with the principle of adequate time to deploy, suggesting implementing a more concrete time frame of 5 years to deploy. Xplore, in its general support of the principles, also provided comments on ISED’s adequate time to deploy proposal, arguing that access licensing could be an enforcement tool and should be triggered by a licensee’s failure to comply with its deployment conditions. TECHNATION offered similar comments and argued that access licences should not apply until after the end of the initial licence period. ITPA also noted that ISED should grant licensees time to deploy and meet their deployment conditions before making the licence available to others.

56. Additionally, Iristel supported the proposals but drew attention to the CRTC’s recent decision on mobile virtual network operators (MVNO), indicating concern over how access licensing would work within the CRTC’s MVNO rules.

57. Other respondents, such as Bell, who opposed the proposed principles, argued that access licensing should not apply to spectrum licences that are still in their initial licence term. Rogers reiterated its opposition to access licensing as a whole, and offered a variety of suggestions to change the principles outlined by ISED. Specifically, Rogers agreed with Bell that access licensing should not be applied to any bands in their initial licence term, and suggested that ISED should consider bands held by government departments and agencies, such as the Department of National Defence, for access licensing. Rogers also advocated for an additional principle that access licences should not include spectrum from more than one carrier at any single location, as well as directly opposed calls for the expansion of access licensing to other bands. Similarly, SaskTel reiterated its opposition to access licensing and argued that licences should only be issued after notice has been given to the existing licensee and only at the point of licence renewal. Additionally, SaskTel argued that if access licensing were to be expanded to any additional bands, there should be a public consultation. SSi agreed with the principle that access licensing should be restricted only to bands that have good potential for coexistence, but argued that a principle supporting sufficient unused spectrum is vague and impractical. SSi also argued that any principle favouring private users is short-sighted.

Discussion

58. ISED is of the view that the proposed set of principles aligns with the objectives discussed in section 3, in particular to promote connectivity in rural and remote areas.

59. ISED received a wide range of comments on the outlined principles. Most groups were broadly supportive of the principles outlined, while many offered additional proposals, suggested changes to specific wording, and/or sought clarification. The most commonly received comments were from those requesting clarification on what qualifies as sufficient amounts of unused spectrum and adequate time for existing licensees to deploy. ISED also received multiple comments requesting that access licensing be applied to many bands, as well as proposals to add explicit text stating that access licences cannot be issued in the initial licence term.

60. ISED is of the view that its proposed principles provide regulatory flexibility when applying access licensing to future bands and support ISED’s use it or lose it approach. While there were concerns over sufficient spectrum, the issuance of access licences in the initial term, and questions related to the selection of bands, any future bands chosen for access licensing will be subject to further public consultation, which will take into account these issues depending on the specifics of the band. Given the above, ISED will maintain the principles as outlined in the Consultation.

Decision

61. This section discusses the general licensing process for access spectrum licences, including an Indigenous priority window (IPW), type of licences, licence areas, application window, treatment of existing licences in the band, eligibility, and conditions of licence.

6.1 Flexible use access spectrum licences

62. ISED sought comments on adopting a flexible use licensing model for fixed and/or mobile services when issuing access spectrum licences.

Summary of comments

63. The majority of respondents supported ISED’s proposal to adopt a flexible use licensing model for fixed and/or mobile services when issuing access spectrum licences. Supporters included Advintive, Bell, BCBA, CCSA, CEA, CanWISP, Clearwater County, Cogeco, Com Com Services, Communications Télésignal, Dr. Gregory Taylor, Ecotel, ECN, FMCC, ITPA, the Internet Society and Mozilla, Iristel, Kris Joseph and Michael B. McNally, Lyttonnet, Motorola, Redline, SaskTel, SSi, TELUS, TerreStar, Twincomm and Xplore.

64. Some respondents offered additional comments to their support. The RMA suggested that flexible use licences should only be used if there are measures in place to ensure that spectrum currently used to deliver fixed wireless services is not redeployed to mobile usage, and also argued that a flexible use licence should require spectrum licensees to outline their planned spectrum use to ensure efficient usage. Advintive noted some systems had technical parameters that are not compatible to be mixed and would need to be either fixed or mobile, not both. CCSA noted some concern that a flexible use model could contribute to spectrum congestion and argued that the primary benefit of access licensing for most CCSA members would be the opportunity to use spectrum to extend and improve their existing fixed terrestrial networks. Kris Joseph and Michael B. McNally cautioned that there may be situations where unmet deployment requirements in fixed-use bands may conflict with future access licensing offerings in other bands and tiers.

65. Although Rogers generally opposed the access licensing regime, it supported the modification of the Canadian Table of Frequency Allocations (CTFA), in order to support flexible use by existing licensees. Rogers opposed the proposal to issue flexible use access spectrum licences, and instead argued that the licences should only include fixed and mobile access, and should exclude applications such as fixed point-to-point microwave or drone operations. Bell supported a flexible use model, but also indicated its support for Rogers’ proposal that the access licensing framework should not permit fixed point-to-point or drone operations. Wilson Engineering also opposed flexible use, arguing instead that access licences should only be made available for wireless fixed broadband usage in low-density population areas.

Discussion

66. Flexible use licences allow operators to offer mobile services, such as to smartphones and other connected devices, and/or fixed wireless services, such as broadband to the home or private network services. ISED implemented flexible use licensing models in its recent spectrum licensing processes, including for the 600 MHz, 3500 MHz, 3800 MHz and 3900 MHz bands. This approach is intended to enable new technologies and innovations, while supporting a variety of different needs and use cases as well as the growing demand for new 5G services.

67. ISED maintains the view that a flexible use model would enable a wide range of technologies and services, allow licensees to better align their services to the needs of their customers, and remain in line with other recent decisions from ISED. This, combined with the wide support for flexible use from respondents, indicates that flexible use is the appropriate approach for access spectrum licences.

68. Furthermore, ISED acknowledges the concerns about potential coexistence challenges with respect to drone usage in bands identified for access licensing. Drones are currently permitted only in certain licence-exempt bands, such as the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands, and are not permitted to operate in commercial mobile spectrum bands, as highlighted in the Spectrum Outlook 2023 to 2027. Consequently, drone usage will not be permitted as part of the access licensing framework at this time.

69. Given the above, ISED is maintaining its proposal to adopt a flexible use licensing model for access spectrum licences.

Decisions

6.2 Licence areas for access spectrum licences

70. ISED sought comments on its proposal to use Tier 5 service areas for access spectrum licences, as well as on any possible future adjustments to the licence areas for access spectrum licensing, including the use of more localized areas.

Summary of comments

71. BCBA, CanWISP, Clearwater County, Cogeco, Communications Télésignal, ECN, FMCC, ITPA, the Internet Society and Mozilla, Kris Joseph and Michael B. McNally, Lyttonnet, Motorola, the Rural Municipalities of Alberta, Syngenta, TELUS, TerreStar and Twincomm all supported the use of Tier 5 service areas as the basis of access spectrum licences. ECN, FMCC, and the Internet Society and Mozilla also supported the use of Tier 5 service areas, but added a caveat that ISED should have provisions in place to allow for smaller licence areas if Tier 5 service areas prove to be problematic. In addition to its support, ITPA urged ISED to consider actual coverage offered by a site rather than just looking at the site location when determining what Tier 5 service areas should become available. Lyttonnet also added that Tier 5 areas are a good basis for access spectrum licensing, but argued for a database-driven approach, which could allow multiple users in a single Tier 5 service area.

72. ISED also received a number of comments on future adjustments to the licence areas. A significant number of respondents suggested that ISED use smaller areas, such as grid cells, site-based models, or subdivisions of existing Tier 5 service areas for access licensing. Those who suggested the use of smaller areas included Advintive, BCBA, Bell, CanWISP, CCSA, CFA, CEA, ECN, Redline, SeaBoard Group, Twincomm, Wilson Engineering and TECHNATION. Communications Télésignal offered a nuanced approach to using smaller areas. It suggested that ISED use Tier 5 service areas as a check on the access spectrum licence eligibility and then authorize use over a smaller area, instead of a Tier 5 service area, which would not interfere with existing licensees. Alternatively, GNWT cautioned against the use of grid cells so as to ensure that licensees could not pick and chose certain grid cells in a way that would not result in increased deployment, while still recognizing that some Tier 5 service areas, such as those across the Northwest Territories, may be prohibitively large.

73. Others such as Motorola, ITPA and TELUS supported the use of Tier 5 service areas for access spectrum licences but also supported subdividing Tier 5 service areas into smaller, more localized areas for private networks and specialized users. TELUS added the caveat that access spectrum licensees should still be required to not interfere with existing licensees should they be licensed over smaller areas.

74. The Internet Society and Mozilla, ECN and FMCC requested more information on how multiple applications for spectrum in a single Tier 5 service area would be handled, such as considerations for specific project priority, possible sharing if multiple users would be allowed in a single block and tier, among other factors.

75. Some respondents, such as Iristel and Clearwater County, noted that Tier 5 service areas may work in some locations where the tier areas are already relatively small, but pointed out that in areas with larger tier sizes, subdividing those tiers into smaller licence areas would be beneficial. Similarly, the Internet Society and Mozilla and FMCC suggested that service areas should be reviewed after the expiry of the first round of access spectrum licences so as to evaluate the potential use of more granular service areas. Bell added a suggestion that access spectrum licensees should be required to submit a 3-year deployment plan to ISED, so as to ensure they can meet their outlined deployment goals. Similarly, RMA indicated a desire that deployments be encouraged across entire rural areas, rather than just the large population centres in those areas.

76. Xplore argued that lower and mid-band frequencies have the potential to cause interference issues and may lower the efficiency with which spectrum can be deployed at the Tier 5 service area level. SSi opposed the use of Tier 5 service areas, as well as the use of smaller areas. Instead, it argued for a streamlined subordination process and claimed that an efficient secondary market would fulfill ISED’s policy goals better than access licensing. Rogers similarly opposed the use of Tier 5 service areas and instead suggested that if access spectrum licensing were to be used, the areas should be kept small to ensure protection for existing licensees. SaskTel also opposed the use of Tier 5 service areas or smaller areas, and argued that this could permit abuse and may create coordination challenges. Instead, SaskTel argued that decisions on the area size should be taken on a case-by-case basis and site-based licences should be offered in different bands. Similarly, Shaw argued that the use of Tier 5 areas could create serious coordination challenges and argued that subordinations should remain the dominant market force for accessing spectrum.

77. Several respondents, including Bell, FCM, Iristel, ITPA, Rogers, TELUS and Xplore, noted that some Tier 5 service areas could receive service from stations located outside those service area boundaries and therefore those Tier 5 service areas should also be excluded from the access licensing framework.

Discussion

78. When identifying potential licence areas for access spectrum licensing, ISED took into consideration the possible use cases and the characteristics of the spectrum, including propagation characteristics and potential for interference coordination challenges. Access spectrum licences are intended to provide access to spectrum in relatively localized areas within larger areas that have already been licensed. Licensing based on Tier 5 service areas will provide flexibility to licensees by allowing them to concentrate on the geographic markets of most interest and/or to aggregate smaller service areas into larger regions that correspond to their business needs.

79. ISED acknowledges that a number of commenters requested the use of smaller tier areas than Tier 5 service areas. It is ISED’s view that at this time, issuing access licences in areas smaller than Tier 5, such as grid cells or localized licensing included in the Non-Competitive Local Licensing Framework, could be overly burdensome to licensees to coordinate with existing licensees, particularly in low bands and some mid bands where signals could travel over relatively long distances. However, ISED may consider smaller service areas, such as grid cells or local licensing, on a band-by-band basis for access licensing subject to further consultation.

80. Given the points above, alongside the general support from respondents on the use of Tier 5 areas for access licences, ISED will maintain its proposal to use Tier 5 service areas as defined in the Service areas for competitive licensing for access spectrum licences.

Decision

6.3 Identifying rural and remote areas for access spectrum licensing

81. ISED proposed to use its Spectrum Management System (SMS) to identify rural and remote Tier 5 service areas in which there is unused spectrum.

Summary of comments

82. Respondents were split on the proposed approach for identifying unserved rural and remote Tier 5 service areas. A handful of respondents, including CCSA, CanWISP, ITPA, and Kris Joseph and Michael B. McNally, supported ISED’s proposal to conduct an analysis of licensing and site data obtained from the SMS database to identify rural and remote Tier 5 service areas in which spectrum is unused.

83. Others raised concerns over the use of SMS data, citing concerns over accuracy and reliability of the database. For example, Iristel saw SMS data as a good starting point, but argued that ISED should advise the primary licence holder before issuing an access licence to ensure that the SMS data is up to date, and noted that it is possible for a tier area to have service even if there are no radios in the area. Lyttonnet, Twincomm and ITPA argued that ISED should consider frequencies and use propagation modelling based on the SMS data to have a more accurate model to determine areas for access licensing, while Twincomm noted that higher frequency bands could be reused more times in an area given propagation characteristics. FCM similarly indicated concerns over the accuracy of the SMS data and suggested that site coverage from surrounding areas must be measured to confirm if the spectrum is actually available.

84. A large portion of respondents asked for further details on the proposal or added further suggestions. Advintive requested that ISED produce maps of existing coverage to determine what would be available in existing areas. Redline requested clear definitions as to which bands are defined as rural and remote, as well as asking for more granular areas to be identified within Tier 5 service areas. BCBA wanted ISED to issue a very clear set of rules for applications and set timelines to issue the access licences. CanWISP added onto its support of the use of SMS data by suggesting that a potential applicant should be allowed to challenge a tier area where the SMS data shows a small deployment, but for which there is no service apparent in the area. Additionally, TECHNATION expressed concerns over whether the access licensing framework would be periodically reviewed, and was unclear on whether consideration would be taken for an existing licensee’s near term deployment plans. TECHNATION suggested that ISED needs to offer a transparent account of how it will determine when spectrum is unused and offer a means to challenge the decisions. Cogeco offered an alternative approach, saying that ISED should take action on an application-by-application basis to ensure that the access licences do not create interference to incumbents. Similar to others, TELUS viewed the proposal as appropriate for initially identifying Tier 5 areas and blocks, but that additional studies should be done to ensure that deployment within that Tier 5 area would not adversely impact existing coverage being offered by the existing licensee.

85. Respondents including Bell, Communications Télésignal, Ecotel, Rogers, SaskTel and Xplore opposed ISED’s proposal to use SMS data. Bell argued that the SMS data would be incomplete and inaccurate, and that ISED should consider actual network coverage and spectrum usage as well as allowing incumbents to review the licence areas to ensure that they are not being served by a site in an adjacent tier. Similarly, Ecotel argued that ISED could not rely on the SMS data and should instead use an approach whereby it can determine if spectrum is used by customers, not only by sites. Both Rogers and Communications Télésignal suggested that instead of the SMS data, availability should be based on the existing licensees' coverage maps, and should include a conservative protective buffer zone to avoid interference. Further to this, Rogers argued that if ISED did use SMS data, it should provide its initial analysis to existing licensees to review for errors or omissions in the SMS database, and argued that all areas with any coverage, even from adjacent areas, should be omitted from access licensing. In its opposition, SaskTel viewed the use of SMS data as flawed, and argued that any approach that ISED pursues must consider the immediate and short-term plans of the existing licensees that have existing cellular sites and infrastructure in the associated Tier 4, or especially Tier 5, service area. Xplore also noted that when licences were initially issued the bands, the Tier 5 areas were not yet a consideration and argued that parties should be given the opportunity to identify to ISED where they are serving within their primary licence area prior to access licensing’s implementation.

Discussion

86. Several respondents noted that some Tier 5 service areas could receive service from stations located outside service area boundaries and, therefore, that such Tier 5 service areas should also be excluded from the access spectrum licensing regime. As such, ISED will only make Tier 5 service areas that are not being served by existing licensee sites from within or from adjacent service areas available for access spectrum licensing.

87. ISED received a number of comments on its proposal to use the SMS data to identify rural and remote Tier 5 service areas with unused spectrum. While a handful of respondents supported the use of the SMS data, others cited concerns over the accuracy and reliability of the database. To ensure the continued accuracy of the database, existing spectrum licensees are required to upload any new or modified site information to the SMS on a monthly basis, pursuant to Client Procedures Circular CPC-2-1-30, Technical Information Associated with Radiocommunication Installations. As such, spectrum licensees are responsible for the accuracy of their SMS data. However, ISED recognizes that existing licensees should have some notice regarding licences that will be made available for access spectrum licensing and an opportunity to correct any errors. As such, when ISED announces its decision to make a band available for an access licensing process, it will also publish a preliminary list of Tier 5 service areas and frequency block combinations that could be made available for access spectrum licensing. Prior to the start of any application window for access licensing (including an Indigenous priority window, as applicable), ISED will create a bank of available licences in its SMS, where applicants may apply for them during the time stipulated for the window.

88. When determining which Tier 5 service areas with unused spectrum will be made available for access spectrum licensing, ISED will take into account existing licensees’ site data information found in the SMS database as well as associated service contours, assuming the maximum permissible technical specifications are used per existing site. This latter assumption provides existing licensees with the opportunity to modify technical parameters, within the limits prescribed in the applicable technical standard, at existing sites if required. Incumbent licensees can thereby expand coverage of existing networks unhindered by access licensing deployments. Similarly, access spectrum licensees can deploy in areas not currently served by existing licensee sites.

89. Therefore, ISED is maintaining its proposal that rural and remote Tier 5 areas with unused spectrum will be identified through the use of the SMS database for the initial access spectrum licensing bands.

Decision

6.4 Conditions of licence for access spectrum licences

90. This section outlines the conditions of licence that would generally apply to access spectrum licences.

6.4.1 Eligibility

91. ISED sought comments on two proposed options for eligibility for access spectrum licences. Option 1 proposed that to be eligible, an applicant must not hold a spectrum licence for commercial mobile, fixed, or flexible use spectrum with no deployment in the same Tier 5 licence area as the area for which it is seeking an access spectrum licence. Option 2 proposed that to be eligible, an applicant must not hold a spectrum licence, whether deployed or undeployed, for commercial mobile, fixed, or flexible use spectrum, in the same Tier 5 licence area as the area for which it is seeking an access spectrum licence. In both cases, applicants must meet the general eligibility requirements set out in section 9 of the Radiocommunication Regulations.

92. ISED also sought comments on whether the eligibility criteria proposed should only pertain to the band that the licence application is for (a “band-specific” approach, for example in 800 MHz Cellular or PCS), or to all bands (a “band-agnostic” approach).

Summary of comments on eligibility options

93. There were varied opinions among stakeholders. Advintive, CanWISP, BCBA, Cogeco, CEA, Eastlink, FMCC, Lyttonet, Motorola, Québecor, Kris Joseph and Michael B. McNally, Syngenta, TELUS, TerreStar, Twincomm and Xplore indicated support for Option 1. Many believed that this would support the improvement and expansion of existing services, especially for rural and remote end-users. Lyttonet and TELUS noted that Option 1 would allow operators that already hold spectrum to expand and improve their services, with TELUS noting that access spectrum licensing would be critical to licensees of all sizes. Bell agreed with TELUS’s comments. Several stakeholders saw benefits to Option 1 because it would enable existing licensees to apply for access spectrum licences. Kris Joseph and Michael B. McNally raised concerns about both options, but stated that Option 1 would offer flexibility for different deployment scenarios. Bell stated that national service providers should not be excluded, adding that those operators with the capacity to deploy, or that have demonstrated their ability to use the spectrum, should be eligible. Advintive stated that existing licensees with undeployed spectrum in Tier 5 or larger areas likely had little interest to deploy in those areas in the future and should be prevented from acquiring additional spectrum licences in the same areas. Though in support of Option 1, CEA opposed strict restrictions for eligibility and proposed that applicants with detailed and credible development plans should be favoured, with municipalities, First Nations, WISPs and critical infrastructure operators being prioritized.

94. A similar number of stakeholders preferred Option 2, including Communications Télésignal, ECN, the Internet Society and Mozilla, Redline, Rogers, SaskTel and Xplore. Supporters of Option 2 suggested that it would provide an opportunity for new operators to gain access to spectrum. Communications Télésignal noted that current licence holders have had ample opportunity to develop their networks, and therefore did not see any reason to allow them to apply for access spectrum licences in these areas. Though SaskTel opposed the access licensing framework, it believed Option 2 would be preferable to Option 1, as it would best support new operators that intend to service rural and remote areas. Xplore noted that access licences should be available on a priority basis to operators that have generally had little access to spectrum. Rogers suggested that applicants be required to demonstrate that they have undertaken best efforts to secure spectrum through existing means, including through subordination.

95. Several stakeholders, such as CCSA, Clearwater County, Ecotel, FCM, Iristel, ITPA, Kris Joseph and Michael B. McNally, Redline, SSi, TECHNATION, UPA and WCWGA, preferred neither option. Most of them considered each option to be overly restrictive, and some proposed alternatives. For example, TECHNATION indicated that holding any spectrum should not prevent applicants from acquiring more, if needed. It further noted that the eligibility requirements were focused on competition to serve rural and remote areas, which does not exist for many underserved areas. Iristel agreed and also suggested that access spectrum licences should be granted for services that would most benefit rural and remote Canadians. ITPA stated that both options contradicted ISED’s policy objectives for the Consultation, as they excluded potential applicants that require additional spectrum to enable planned deployments or improve existing deployment. Similarly, FCM and CCSA added that there may be cases where a licensee’s network is partially developed, but requires additional spectrum to fully deploy and operate a viable network. ITPA proposed that ISED consider applications that best meet certain criteria, such as network speed and buildout of existing and new coverage. Both ITPA and Iristel agreed with prioritizing systems that meet the 50/10 Mbps broadband service objective.

96. Ecotel disagreed with the proposed options and recommended that eligibility should be restricted to entities already operating a mobile network and that larger operators be ineligible, at least for the first year of access spectrum licensing. Similarly, Redline was opposed to eligibility restrictions, except for major regional or national spectrum holders. UPA suggested that eligibility initially be restricted to local operators, then opened up to large or national operators at a later time.

97. Iristel, ITPA, Clearwater County and TECHNATION questioned whether the purpose of the proposed eligibility options was to address potential spectrum hoarding by incumbents, and expressed the belief that ISED could address this issue through means other than restricting eligibility.

Summary of comments on band considerations for eligibility

98. Advintive, Bell, CCSA, Clearwater County, Cogeco, Eastlink, Kris Joseph and Michael B. McNally, Québecor, Redline, SSi, Syngenta, TELUS, TerreStar and Twincomm saw advantages to a band-specific approach. Bell, Eastlink, Cogeco, Québecor and TerreStar all considered that a band-specific approach would better allow for existing licensees with licences or deployments in other bands to expand or improve their service through access licensing. CCSA and Clearwater County both rationalized that the band-specific approach would provide a more open eligibility approach as fewer potential applicants would be deemed ineligible, whereas an approach considering all bands would be too restrictive. TELUS also supported a band-specific approach, considering a band-agnostic approach to be impractical and difficult to administer. TELUS rationalized that a band-agnostic approach would foreclose the opportunity for any licensee to expand and improve services, going against the described intent of the access licensing framework.

99. Communications Télésignal, FMCC, Lyttonet, Rogers and SaskTel supported the band-agnostic approach instead. Lyttonet stated that a band-agnostic approach would encourage existing licensees to build out current networks before considering the acquiring of additional spectrum through access licensing. For its part, Communications Télésignal rationalized that licensees with existing spectrum in any band should already be able to offer services to the area, and should not be allowed to use access spectrum licensing to acquire more. In opposition to the argument that an applicant may require additional spectrum in order to provide services in certain areas, Rogers claimed that equipment ecosystems for all currently licensed bands are sufficiently developed for licensees to be able to provide services regardless of the bands held, including licence-exempt and lightly licensed bands. Similarly, Xplore recommended ISED consider all types of commercial mobile and flexible use spectrum for eligibility.

100. Some submissions suggested eligibility requirements be based on categories of bands. Among these, CanWISP and BCBA supported an eligibility approach based on an applicant not having undeployed spectrum in the same band category (i.e. low-band, mid-band, high-band, millimetre wave). CEA suggested that ISED determine eligibility based on a licensee’s ownership of spectrum in bands in which 3GPP commercial mobile, fixed and flexible use services are deployed, rather than LTE and 5G bands whose networks are multiband. ECN and the Internet Society and Mozilla were of the opinion operators with International Mobile Telecommunication (IMT) spectrum licences in a given Tier 5 area should not be eligible, so that new operators can gain access. In ECN’s view, such an approach would best enable small, independent local or regional service providers to offer reliable, affordable services in rural and remote communities.

101. Finally, Ecotel, ITPA, Iristel and TECHNATION rejected both approaches, explaining that requirements based on deployment and band specificity are counterproductive towards addressing rural and remote connectivity.

Discussion

102. ISED agrees with commenters who noted that to ensure that unused spectrum is put to use, eligibility should support all providers, both existing and new, who are able and willing to put the spectrum to use, either in providing new services or enhancing existing services. Use cases may include bringing services to rural and remote communities, whether for mobile connectivity or broadband, as well as private networks or industry verticals.

103. As noted by multiple stakeholders, Option 2, which would see eligibility limited to those without any existing spectrum in a given Tier 5 area, could support access for new operators in access spectrum licensing areas and improve competition. However, Option 2 could be overly restrictive to existing licensees, preventing service improvements and the development of new business cases using additional spectrum.

104. Option 1 would not allow applications from operators that have undeployed spectrum in a given Tier 5 area, and would provide broader eligibility than Option 2. As noted by some stakeholders, Option 1 could enable existing licensees to acquire more spectrum, if needed, to provide new or improved services. Combined with a band-specific approach to eligibility limitations, Option 1 would be the least restrictive approach to eligibility that was initially proposed by ISED. However, both a band-specific or band-agnostic approach may limit use of the available spectrum, and as such would be overly restrictive and to the detriment of the intent of the framework.

105. As some stakeholders have pointed out, there may be legitimate reasons for a licensee to have not yet deployed existing spectrum in a given area. Some services, such as providing voice, text and data capabilities, or designing private networks, often require a combination of spectrum bands, some of which the operator may not have obtained yet, in order to provide the level of service expected by consumers or to meet the government’s 50/10 Mbps service objective.

106. The Tier 5 service areas available for access licensing will be in rural and remote areas, where communities, including Indigenous communities, have often been unserved or underserved. ISED’s priority in these areas is to support the timely development of new or improved connectivity options. As such, it is in ISED’s interest to implement a more open eligibility approach than those initially proposed, which focuses on making access spectrum licences available to all operators with the capacity and intent to deploy the spectrum. This view was echoed by several stakeholders, each of which opposed both of the proposed eligibility options, finding them too restrictive.

107. Moreover, in designing the access licensing framework, ISED is mindful of the need for simplicity and clarity. Many aspects of this framework, including the first-come, first-served application process and licence conditions modelled on those already applicable to the band, are intended to be straightforward for operators and simple for potential applicants. ISED considers that the eligibility criteria for access spectrum licences should be similarly clear and straightforward.

108. Both Options 1 and 2, whether applied on a band-specific or band-agnostic basis, are administratively complex. For each application, the applicant would need to indicate, or ISED would need to determine, whether the applicant has an existing licence or deployment in the Tier 5 area where they are seeking an access spectrum licence. Additional eligibility criteria proposed by some stakeholders would increase the burden on applicants and the complexity of the assessment process.

109. For these reasons, ISED will not proceed with either Option 1 or Option 2 to define eligibility for access spectrum licences. Instead it will only require that licensees demonstrate that they meet the eligibility requirements set out in section 9(1) of the Radiocommunication Regulations. This requirement is simpler and more straightforward than Options 1 or 2, or the additional stakeholder proposals. Moreover, this requirement would allow a wider range of potential applicants who could put undeployed spectrum to use for the benefit of rural and remote areas. Note that existing licensees will not be permitted to apply for the blocks of spectrum, and the associated areas, for which they themselves already hold a licence.

Decision

6.4.2 Licence term

110. ISED proposed a 3-year term for access spectrum licences. At the end of this term, the licensee would have a high expectation that a new licence will be issued for an equivalent licence term unless a breach of licence condition has occurred, a fundamental reallocation of spectrum to a new service is required, or an overriding policy need arises.

Summary of comments

111. Multiple stakeholders, including Bell, Cogeco, Communications Télésignal, ECN, FMCC, Iristel, ITPA, the Internet Society and Mozilla, Rogers and Xplore, supported ISED’s proposed licence term. Bell considered that the licence term was sufficient for those with a well-defined deployment plan and the intention to deploy immediately. Rogers considered the proposal to be sufficient to provide some business certainty and recommended the use of other existing measures such as subordinate licensing for those seeking longer licence terms. Communications Télésignal proposed adding a guarantee that the spectrum would be available to access licensees for at least 9 years, assuming the licensee has met its licence conditions, in order to justify the cost of investment, particularly for private networks.

112. A number of other stakeholders, including Advintive, BCBA, CanWISP, Clearwater County, CCSA, Eastlink, Ecotel, Lyttonet, Motorola and Redline, stated that a licence term of 3 years would be too short to provide business certainty, often for return on investment or to raise financing. Commentors suggested a variety of extended terms, up to 10 years. Ecotel and CEA proposed that ISED could balance a longer licence term with stricter deployment timelines if needed.

113. SaskTel and TELUS considered the proposed 3-year licence term to be too long. SaskTel argued that a shorter licence term was needed, along with other measures, to prevent spectrum speculation. They further recommended that the licence should contain no presumption of renewal, which should be contingent on strict deployment requirements and continued use. TELUS proposed that access licences be issued with an initial 1-year term, renewed annually if licensees meet certain deployment requirements.

Discussion

114. Generally, licences issued on an FCFS basis have 1-year terms. In proposing a 3-year licence term, ISED sought to ensure the timely use of undeployed spectrum while providing licensees with a reasonable amount of time to attract investment, secure equipment and labour, and deploy the spectrum.

115. ISED recognizes that in rural and remote areas, longer licence terms may be desirable to account for the particular challenges of deploying infrastructure in these areas, such as the time required to transport equipment or build supporting infrastructure. As stated by some respondents, 18 months is a reasonable time frame for a new deployment build plan, and therefore licensees can put the spectrum to use within a 3-year licence term.

116. ISED recognizes that a 3-year licence term might not be sufficient to provide certainty for some investors. However, the intent of access spectrum licensing is to make spectrum available to operators that have an immediate business case to use the spectrum, for areas with limited or no alternative solutions.

117. Further, ISED proposed that access spectrum licences in good standing have a high expectation of renewal. Where the licensee complies with all of its licence conditions, and there is no fundamental reallocation of spectrum or overriding policy need, licences will be renewed. This approach has already functioned successfully for the provision of services using FCFS licences for many years, demonstrating that business certainty, investment returns, and ongoing service to Canadians can be realized with relatively short licence terms.

118. ISED notes that a 3-year licence term, combined with other measures such as deployment requirements, fees, and restrictions on transfers and subordinations, can dissuade operators from engaging in spectrum speculation or warehousing. Furthermore, ISED may revisit the licence term after the initial licence period to determine whether this approach meets the objectives established for the access licensing framework.

119. After considering the above, ISED considers that a 3-year licence term, with a high expectation of renewal, is appropriate to ensure that access licensed spectrum is put to use in a timely and sustained manner.

Decision

6.4.3 Licence transferability, divisibility and subordinate licensing

120. ISED proposed that access spectrum licences not be granted transfer, subordination or subdivision privileges.

Summary of comments

121. Bell, CCSA, Communications Télésignal, the Internet Society and Mozilla, Motorola, SaskTel, TerreStar and Xplore supported ISED’s proposals. The Internet Society and Mozilla believed that this approach would avoid potential complexity, while Bell and Lyttonet stated that it would help curb speculation. CanWISP and BCBA agreed that no subordinations or subdivision would be necessary, but only if the size of the licences were smaller that the proposed Tier 5 areas and subdivided portions were made available.

122. Some respondents, including Advintive, BCBA, CanWISP, CEA, Cogeco, Ecotel, ECN, FMCC, Iristel, ITPA, JBCCS, Redline, SSi, Syngenta and TECHNATION, proposed that access spectrum licence transfers and/or subordinations should be permitted in some circumstances. While Ecotel agreed that transfers should not be permitted, it proposed that subordination be allowed in order to encourage better coverage and more efficient use of the spectrum. Redline supported granting transfer and subordination privileges as a means of encouraging further deployments. TECHNATION proposed that a case-by-case approach be implemented to not limit potential innovation for verticals or private networks. Cogeco agreed in principle that ISED’s proposal would limit spectrum warehousing or speculation, but argued that additional conditions, such as shorter licence terms or stricter deployment requirements, would be a more appropriate solution. It recommended that transfers and subordinate agreements be allowed in instances of network sharing or co-build partnerships between an access spectrum licensee and another party. JBCCS also encouraged ISED to consider shared access licensing, particularly in large Tier 5 regions. FMCC disagreed with preventing the use of subordination, as it has been an important mechanism for extending services in rural, remote and Indigenous areas. Advintive disagreed with limiting transfers and subordination for access spectrum licensing, but supported preventing subdivisions. CanWISP and BCBA expressed concerns that the prohibition of transfers would discourage the use of the framework, inhibit investment, and reduce the framework’s potential benefits for rural consumers. CanWISP, BCBA and ITPA proposed that licensees be allowed to transfer a licence or subordinate the licensed spectrum to a private network, if the licensee had met its own deployment conditions in the licence area.

123. There was a significant amount of discussion regarding subdividing areas. Iristel suggested that a right to subordinate or subdivide access spectrum licences might be reasonable in some larger remote Tier 5 areas where population centres could be located far from each other. ECN pointed out its territory was split across two remote Tier 5 areas, and without the possibility of sub-dividing Tier 5 licence areas, coverage would be more expensive and more challenging for it. Syngenta proposed that subdivision be allowed once initial deployment conditions had been met, as a means of encouraging deployment across entire Tier 5 areas. CanWISP, BCBA, CEA, Ecotel and FMCC proposed that ISED allow access licences to be subdivided. Rogers stated it preferred site-based access licences over the subdivision of licences. Ecotel stated that the ability to subdivide and subordinate would encourage better coverage of larger Tier 5 areas, and result in more efficient spectrum usage.

124. Numerous stakeholders, including BCBA, CanWISP, CEA, Clearwater County, Cogeco, Iristel, Kris Joseph and Michael B. McNally, Motorola, ITPA, Rogers and TELUS, recommended that ISED allow for deemed transfers of access licences in the event of a bankruptcy, merger, restructuring or other business activity leading to the transfer of ownership of a network. Some expressed concerns that preventing deemed transfers might lead to a potential loss of service for some users, particularly in rural communities. Kris Joseph and Michael B. McNally, however, proposed that ISED should not permit deemed transfers; instead, licences should be returned or revoked and then immediately be made available for application by the new network owner.

Discussion

125. Pursuant to the Radiocommunication Act, the Minister has the authority to fix and amend the conditions of licence of spectrum licences and to determine the privileges appropriate for a licence or class of licences. These potential privileges include, but are not limited to, the ability to subdivide, transfer or subordinate a spectrum licence. This is also made clear in CPC-2-1-23, Licensing Procedure for Spectrum Licences for Terrestrial Services, which states that “spectrum licences assigned under the different licensing processes may have different privileges. One such privilege is that of the enhanced transferability and the divisibility rights accorded to spectrum licences.”

126. The access licensing framework is designed to put underutilized spectrum to use. It is therefore reasonable to expect that licensees who apply for one or more access spectrum licences do so with the intent of using that spectrum for their own immediate operations. Transfer or subordination rights for these licences would undermine the design of the framework. If an operator discovers that it no longer has need of the licence, it should be returned to ISED.

127. ISED recognizes that some transactions such as merger, restructuring or other business activity can result in a change to the ownership or control of the licensee. For commercial mobile spectrum licences, ISED has required licensees to apply for approval where there are changes in ownership and/or control (known as “deemed transfers”) via conditions of licence. However, as access spectrum licensing is expected to enable a variety of diverse use cases and provide service over smaller Tier 5 areas, ISED is of the view that a similar requirement is not necessary for access spectrum licences.

128. ISED notes the concerns of certain stakeholders that the size of Tier 5 rural and remote licence areas might be larger than required for some envisioned use cases, leaving areas of spectrum unused. As noted in section 6.2 of this decision, ISED may consider the possibility of alternatives to Tier 5 areas for access spectrum licensing in the future.

Decision

6.4.4 Deployment requirements

129. ISED proposed to align the deployment requirements for access spectrum licences with the relevant conditions of licence currently applied to the licences in the specific band, taking into account any differing characteristics such as tier sizes and the timing as to when those deployment requirements should apply. ISED further proposed a mid-term deployment requirement within 1 year and a final requirement at the end of the proposed 3-year term of the licence. ISED also sought comments on the appropriateness of existing deployment requirements for private networks.

Deployment approach

130. ISED proposed to align deployment conditions with the relevant conditions of licence applicable to the band being made available for access spectrum licensing.

Summary of comments

131. There was support from BCBA, CanWISP, CCSA, Communications Télésignal, Motorola, SaskTel, TECHNATION, TELUS and TerreStar for ISED’s proposal to align deployment conditions with the relevant conditions of licence applicable to the band being made available for access spectrum licensing. Communications Télésignal stressed that ISED must be mindful that deployment requirements remain achievable according to the nature of the licensee’s intended use of the spectrum.

132. Some respondents, including Bell, Dr. Gregory Taylor, the Internet Society and Mozilla, and SSi, commented that deployment requirements based on population targets may not be appropriate for low population density rural and remote areas, particularly within an initial 3-year term. ITPA noted that some existing bands that may be considered for access spectrum licensing may not have deployment conditions that easily align with the rest of the access licensing framework, and that propagation characteristics of particular bands should be taken into consideration (for example, making mid-band requirements lower than low-band requirements).

133. There were a number of alternative deployment requirements proposed by various stakeholders. TELUS recommended deployment requirements based upon the percentage coverage obligation defined by the most stringent Tier 4 deployment requirement of the incumbent licence, or on the Tier 4 deployment requirements used in the 600 MHz or 3500 MHz licensing frameworks. Bell did not support TELUS’s proposal and instead proposed that access spectrum licence applicants be required to provide a network plan, which would determine their deployment requirements. Bell also recommended that deployment requirements for incumbents be reduced when access spectrum licences are issued in areas falling within the incumbent’s licence area. Iristel did not support the use of a population coverage deployment requirement, and instead proposed deployment conditions based on geographic coverage or the number of deployed radios.

134. Xplore recommended ensuring that deployment requirements are reasonably achievable within the licence term, for example with less ambitious initial deployment requirements, which would be increased upon each renewal of the licence until a coverage level is reached which matches that which applies to the existing licence. CFA and UPA envisioned a similar framework of continuous, graduated deployment, with licence renewal predicated on further advances in deployment.

Discussion

135. Deployment requirements are intended to encourage licensees to put the spectrum to use and to deter acquisition of spectrum licences by speculators and those whose intent is to prevent access to the spectrum by their competitors. ISED acknowledges the different deployment requirement approaches that were suggested by respondents, and the clear interest that many different stakeholders have in seeing improvements to the deployment of spectrum in Canada, particularly to serve rural and remote areas. As such, ISED will consult on deployment conditions for access spectrum licences on a band-by-band basis.

Decision

Deployment timelines

136. ISED also sought comments on the amount of time that should be given to access spectrum licensees in order to meet the established deployment requirements for the licence. ISED noted that access spectrum licensing is intended to promote deployment in rural and remote areas, so it may be appropriate to establish requirements within and at the end of the term of the licence.

Summary of comments

137. Stakeholders such as Ecotel, Lyttonnet, SaskTel and Syngenta supported an initial deployment requirement at the end of the first year of the licence term. Lyttonnet and Syngenta viewed this measure as reasonable to help avoid spectrum speculation and ensure proper usage. SaskTel supported both the 1-year and end-of-term deployment requirements. Ecotel supported a very short time frame for deployment conditions, a maximum of 12 months, and a strict use it or lose it policy for those who fail to meet the initial deployment requirement. The Internet Society and Mozilla proposed that the licensee must have made “reasonable” efforts to deploy within 1 year.

138. Some respondents wanted the initial deployment requirement to be less than 1 year after the issuance of an access licence. TECHNATION preferred an initial deployment time frame as short as 6 months. While not a requirement to be completely deployed, Rogers proposed that access licensees be required to submit an attestation 6 months into their licence term confirming that deployment has begun and that ISED should terminate licences in cases of non-compliance.

139. A number of respondents, including Bell, BCBA, CanWISP, Clearwater County, Cogeco, FCM, Iristel, the Internet Society and Mozilla, ITPA and Rogers, suggested that the initial deployment requirement should be later than 1 year after licensing, arguing that a 1-year deployment requirement may not be reasonable if new site development is required. Rogers proposed an 18-month deployment time frame as reflective of a reasonable build cycle, particularly in rural and remote areas of Canada, while Iristel proposed 24 months or even 3 years as a more reasonable time frame. FCM stated that given the technical complexities involved in the deployment of Radio Access Networks (RAN), a minimum of 24 months to put the spectrum to use would be reasonable, with 3 years also being deemed acceptable. ITPA supported 24-month deployment requirements, but agreed that given the relatively short licence term of access spectrum licences, ISED could opt to require that conditions be fulfilled prior to renewal in order to minimize the administrative burden. CanWISP and BCBA recommended a 2-year or 3-year deployment requirement in line with broadband funding program timelines, as well as the typical tower siting process. Bell stated that it had no opposition to either a 12- or 24-month timeline for deployment requirements.

140. While positions on establishing a 1-year mid-term deployment requirement were mixed, there was general agreement or lack of opposition from most stakeholders, including Bell, CEA, Cogeco, FCM, the Internet Society and Mozilla, Iristel and ITPA, on end-of-term deployment requirements and making compliance with them mandatory for licence renewal.

141. Iristel did not have a preference for when deployment conditions should be met, as long as the requirements are simple and well defined.

Discussion

142. ISED proposed to establish deployment requirements within 1 year and at the end of the 3-year term of the licence. While ISED maintains that a shorter time frame for deployment is an effective means of deterring spectrum warehousing or anti-competitive behaviour, it also acknowledges the concerns raised by many respondents about the challenges created by a 1-year deployment requirement.

143. A 1-year initial deployment requirement might be reasonable for licensees with existing infrastructure in eligible Tier 5 areas; however, it may be prohibitive to new entrants. As stated by multiple respondents, new site development, particularly in rural and remote areas, can take longer than 1 year.

144. ISED has also considered the administrative burden of ensuring compliance with deployment requirements twice within a relatively short 3-year licence term for access spectrum licences. While some stakeholders proposed that ISED require licensees to confirm efforts to deploy or provide an attestation, it is ISED’s view that the potential benefits of such a measure are outweighed by the additional administrative cost for both licensees and ISED. For these reasons, ISED will not introduce a mid-term deployment requirement for access spectrum licences. Deployment requirements will therefore be required to be met at the end of the initial 3-year licence term. Upon renewal of any access licence, the deployment requirements will apply throughout any subsequent term(s).

Decision

Deployment requirements for private networks

145. ISED sought comments regarding the appropriateness of existing deployment requirements for private networks.

Summary of comments

146. A number of stakeholders had views on deployment conditions that could be applied to private networks. SaskTel recommended that spectrum usage should not count towards deployment requirements if the public is not being served. CanWISP and BCBA similarly stated that private networks would not be able to meet deployment requirements, since they do not serve the general population. For this reason, they recommended that private network deployments be limited either to areas with no population or to systems that use access radio licences. SSi argued that it would be challenging to apply ambitious deployment requirements on private networks, and did not support proposals for different deployment conditions for private networks, as they viewed this as being inconsistent with the Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada. It reiterated that other strategies for spectrum access, such as subordination, remained more appropriate for private networks.

147. Other respondents had differing concerns about deployment requirements for private networks. Motorola considered that deployment requirements for private networks, unlike those of mobile and fixed wireless operators, should be based on localized service areas that conform with the coverage requirements of the licensee. ITPA supported an 18- or 24-month deployment window for private networks. Rogers opposed ITPA’s proposal and instead recommended that private network deployments be completed in 1 year.

148. Kris Joseph and Michael B. McNally commented that ISED’s definition of a private network was unclear. They added that if ISED were to categorize access spectrum licences as either public or private upon issuance, different deployment requirements would be appropriate for each category. They suggested that for verified, industrial-only applications, a start-of-transmission deadline of 6 months may be sufficient.

149. Bell suggested that setting deployment targets, or some other service-specific measure, for private broadband networks would be an unnecessary and improper form of interference in the normal functioning of the market.

Discussion

150. The access licensing framework is intended to make spectrum available for operators who have an immediate need or identified use case for the spectrum. Use cases could include providing coverage to underserved local populations, providing coverage for roads and highways, or deploying private networks in rural or remote areas. The framework is intended to be flexible enough to accommodate a range of potential uses.

151. When establishing deployment conditions for commercial mobile and flexible use licences, ISED does not distinguish between potential use cases, such as private networks or broadband services to communities. ISED also notes that there are advantages to establishing a consistent deployment requirement that accommodates all potential use cases, which can enable licensees to use the spectrum for a combination of mobile, fixed wireless and private network operations. A station-based approach to deployment will accommodate the various use scenarios described above, including private networks. For these reasons, ISED will not establish different deployment requirements for different use cases.

Decision

Implications of access spectrum licensing for existing licensees’ deployment requirements

152. While existing licensees will continue to be able to deploy in areas where ISED has issued an access spectrum licence, incumbents will also be subject to conditions intended to facilitate deployment by access spectrum licensees, as described in sections 6 and 7 of this decision. ISED acknowledges that these conditions could affect the incumbent’s ability to deploy in these service areas, and considers it appropriate to adjust the incumbent’s deployment conditions accordingly. Therefore, where the incumbent is subject to a population-based deployment requirement in a band where ISED has introduced access spectrum licensing, ISED will subtract the population of any area subject to access spectrum licensing from the incumbent’s deployment requirements should an access spectrum licence for the same spectrum block be issued in that area.

Decision

6.4.5 Other conditions of licence

153. ISED sought comments on other conditions of licence for access spectrum licences, as were outlined in annex B of the Consultation. These conditions were based on existing policies and procedures, and conditions typically included in commercial mobile and flexible use licences.

General comments

154. Bell, Rogers, ITPA and SaskTel all generally supported that conditions of licence for access licences be based on the same conditions of licence as other commercial mobile and flexible use licences, specifically those of the existing PCS and Cellular spectrum licences. CEA had concerns about how the proposed conditions of licence would be adapted for private use, such as industrial and critical infrastructure applications, and if it would be appropriate to apply all of the same obligations to both commercial use spectrum licences and licences for private network use.

155. Some stakeholders had comments about specific conditions of licence, including licence fees; technical considerations and international and domestic coordination; lawful interception; research and development (R&D); tower and site sharing; roaming; and annual reporting. These comments are summarized below.

Comments on fees

156. TELUS recommended that access licences follow the fee framework for the applicable spectrum band, and that the framework be applied on a pro-rata basis according to the population covered by the access licence. Concurrently, it recommended that the fees for the incumbent licence be reduced by an equivalent amount, assuming that the existing licensee would no longer have access to the spectrum covering that population. Ecotel stated that for industrial users and private networks fees per base station should be considered instead. Lyttonnet recommended that ISED consider fees based on actual population covered in network plans, as a means of making licence fees less prohibitive for local providers.

157. The Internet Society and Mozilla, and JBBCS, recommended that ISED adopt a flat fee, similar to that implemented by Ofcom, in order to simplify cost planning and administration. The Internet Society and Mozilla also recommended that fees be waived for Indigenous operators, while FMCC and ENC recommended that Indigenous communities and providers be exempt from spectrum fees. Advintive recommended that licence fees be reduced or waived for rural communities.

158. Rogers opposed waiving fees for public or private networks, as well as limiting fees to the populations that an operator intends to cover. They further stated that if ISED chooses to discount fees for rural and remote areas or move to a cost-recovery model, then this approach should apply to all spectrum bands and licences.

Discussion

159. Spectrum licence fees are part of the overall spectrum management regulatory scheme, which supports the efficient use of spectrum by licensees. Cost recovery is not an objective of the Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada and is not a legislative requirement under the Department of Industry Act for radio and spectrum licences. As such, spectrum and radio licence fees may exceed cost recovery where fees are used to aid in the overall scheme of spectrum management. For instance, fees may be used to incentivize behaviour, such as ensuring that licensees use spectrum efficiently and only where required. As such, ISED will apply annual fees to access spectrum licences. These fees will be based on the fee regime already established for the bands where ISED applies the access licensing framework.

160. ISED acknowledges concerns from incumbents as to the equity of paying the full existing licence fees for their licensed spectrum with the introduction of an access licensing framework. However, ISED notes that the allocation of any spectrum licence does not guarantee the exclusive usage of that spectrum, and the purpose of licence fees is not to ensure exclusivity. Section 40 of the Radiocommunication Regulations is clear that “the assignment of a frequency or frequencies to a holder of a radio authorization does not confer a monopoly on the use of the frequency or frequencies (…).” Furthermore, while the access licensing framework will amend the conditions of licence for incumbents in areas deemed available for access licensing, incumbents will retain access to and usage of all areas of their existing spectrum under the access licensing framework. For these reasons, ISED does not find it necessary to modify the fees of existing licensees based on the potential presence of one or more access spectrum licences.

Decision

Comments on technical considerations and international and domestic coordination

161. Rogers recommended a condition of licence requiring access spectrum licensees to protect existing coverage of the existing licensee, including coverage from sites in adjacent service areas. Furthermore, it recommended that the condition of licence require access spectrum licensees to coordinate with future deployments of the existing licensee. Rogers also recommended that access spectrum licensees be bound, through a condition of licence, by any coordination arrangements reached with the existing licensee and other operators, whether domestic or international.

Discussion

162. ISED acknowledges the concerns expressed by stakeholders, and notes that decisions regarding protection and interference between existing licensees and access spectrum licensees are outlined in section 6.7. ISED has decided that the condition of licence will remain as proposed and as noted in annex A. ISED notes that there may be additional specific technical considerations and international and domestic coordination as part of the conditions of licence set out in the frameworks for a particular band. ISED will generally apply these same requirements for the access spectrum licences in that band and may consider additional requirements on a band-by-band basis if necessary.

163. The proposed wording for the licence condition related to the provision of technical information in annex A has been updated to reflect annex B of the recently published Decision on Amendments to Requirements for Spectrum Licensees to Submit Technical Information about Sites. The reporting requirements in CPC-2-1-30, Technical Information Associated with Radiocommunication Installations, will apply to all access spectrum licences.

Comments on lawful interception

164. Rogers recommended changes to this requirement for both access spectrum licences and the incumbents’ underlying licences. It recommended that the maintenance of lawful interception capabilities be limited to those capabilities that are provided for in industry standards and incorporated in commercially available equipment. It further commented that these requirements should also apply to any private network that provides a connection to the public Internet or public switched telephone network. Motorola was of the opinion that the proposed condition of licence should apply only to commercial service providers. The Internet Society and Mozilla also wondered if this condition was more applicable to operators rather than to the spectrum licence itself.

Discussion

165. This condition of licence applies in multiple bands licensed for commercial mobile service or flexible use. As access spectrum licences are intended for those same types of uses in the same bands, ISED will apply this condition of licence to access spectrum licences in the same manner that it is applied to existing licensees. Regarding the concerns raised by Motorola and the Internet Society and Mozilla, ISED notes that this condition is only applied to telecommunication common carriers.

Comments on research and development

166. Bell, TELUS, and the Internet Society and Mozilla considered this requirement to be unnecessary. Bell was of the position that this condition of licence inappropriately imposes a regulatory disadvantage on a subset of licensees. TELUS submitted that all licensees have the competitive impetus to invest in new technology, network deployment and infrastructure upgrades, rendering a separate R&D requirement unnecessary. The Internet Society and Mozilla put forward that an R&D investment requirement would be unnecessary.

167. Communications Télésignal and Motorola both disagreed with the application of this requirement to licences for private networks. Communications Télésignal further stated that if the requirement was adopted, it should only be applied to telecommunications carriers. FMCC stated that the R&D requirement should be waived for Indigenous licensees.

168. Rogers proposed that the threshold for the application of this condition of licence should be significantly reduced for private network licences due to their strictly commercial nature, and that the condition should apply to all commercial operations that generate at least $10 million in annual gross operating revenues in Canada, averaged over the term of the licence.

Discussion

169. R&D continues to be recognized as a significant contributing factor to the ongoing success of the digital economy in Canada. Maintaining the R&D requirement supports research, technology and investment for the current and future prosperity of Canadians. Furthermore, this condition of licence is already applicable to existing spectrum licences. As such, the R&D condition of licence will be adopted as proposed. ISED notes that this condition applies only to those operators with more than $1 billion in annual gross operating revenues from the provision of wireless services in Canada, averaged over the term of the licence.

Comments on mandatory antenna tower and site sharing

170. The Internet Society and Mozilla, and Communications Télésignal did not consider this condition of licence appropriate for access spectrum licences. The Internet Society and Mozilla stated that given the likelihood of access licences being used for private networks or by small operators providing access in challenging areas, an infrastructure sharing requirement seems inappropriate. Both Communications Télésignal and Motorola recommended that if adopted, the condition should only apply to commercial services and not private networks.

171. Rogers supported this condition of licence, including for access spectrum licensees using the spectrum for private networks. While it agreed towers within mines or mission critical areas of resource extraction sites should be excluded, Rogers added that any tower or structure outside of hazard zones should be subject to this condition of licence.

Discussion

172. The mandatory antenna tower and site sharing condition of licence applies only to telecommunications common carriers and is part of the conditions of licence for most bands intended for commercial mobile and flexible use. To provide clarity to those potential applicants that are unfamiliar with spectrum management, the current definition of a telecommunications common carrier, as per the Telecommunications Act, is a person who owns or operates a transmission facility used by that person or another person to provide telecommunications services to the public for compensation. This condition of licence will remain as proposed in the Consultation.

Comments on mandatory roaming

173. Of the respondents that commented on this condition, Rogers was in support of its inclusion for access spectrum licences.

174. TELUS and Communications Télésignal disagreed with the inclusion of this condition of licence. TELUS considered the condition of licence to be inappropriate given that the relatively small size of the tier areas to be used in access licensing would not be conducive to roaming agreements. It also noted that under the CRTC’s Regulatory framework for wholesale mobile wireless services, regional wireless carriers are eligible to obtain roaming from TELUS, Bell or Rogers at tariffed rates, making the condition of licence unnecessary. Both Communications Télésignal and Motorola recommended that if adopted, mandatory roaming should only apply to commercial services and not private networks. CCSA commented that fixed wireless deployments implemented under access licences might not be technically compatible with mobile roaming requirements, and questioned whether this condition of licence was appropriate for access licensing.

Discussion

175. The mandatory roaming condition of licence applies to all commercial mobile spectrum bands, including other commercial mobile bands where spectrum licences may be used for private networks, among many uses. Given that access spectrum licensing can be used for a similarly broad range of purposes, and that access spectrum licences may be used for both commercial and private network services simultaneously, access spectrum licences will be subject to the mandatory roaming condition where such conditions are applicable.

Comments on annual reporting

176. Bell and Communications Télésignal were opposed to this condition of licence for access spectrum licences. Bell, Rogers and Iristel each made comments that this condition of licence creates an administrative burden. Rogers further questioned the overall value to ISED of annual reporting, and proposed that an acceptable alternative could be an “as requested” model for all mobile and flexible use licences. Both Communications Télésignal and Motorola recommended that if adopted, the condition should not apply to private networks.

177. Iristel was opposed to some aspects of the condition, namely the requirement to provide existing audited financial statements with an accompanying auditor's report; a report of the R&D expenditures for licensees operating as radiocommunication carriers; and a copy of any existing corporate annual report for the licensee's fiscal year with respect to the authorization.

Discussion

178. Spectrum licences currently include a requirement to submit an annual report to ISED to provide some basic information on spectrum use as well as existing company reports. Some comments indicated that annual reporting should be removed or modified to reduce the frequency of reporting, thus lowering the administrative burden on licensees.

179. While this reporting provides ISED with valuable information, the concerns of respondents have been noted. ISED may consult in the future to review the annual reporting requirements. However, at present, the annual reporting condition of licence will remain as proposed.

Decision

6.5 Indigenous priority window

180. People living in Indigenous communities face a connectivity gap disproportionate to those living in the rest of Canada. They experience slower and less reliable Internet connections that impede their economic growth. Most unserved and underserved Indigenous communities are located in rural and remote areas that are hard to connect using traditional wired solutions. In these areas, spectrum is needed to enable the wireless solutions that would be capable to drive 100% connectivity by 2030, a target set in the Connectivity Strategy.

181. In rural and remote Indigenous communities, better access to spectrum can accelerate broadband connectivity, establish reliable cell phone service, improve access to emergency services, and create more economic opportunities for Indigenous businesses.

182. Feedback from multiple respondents, including Spuzzum First Nation, ECN, FMCC and JBCCS, proposed that eligible Indigenous applicants should have the first right of access to spectrum licences made available through the access licensing process. This could be done with an Indigenous priority window (IPW), which would provide a time frame where all access spectrum licences are available only to eligible Indigenous applicants before being made available more broadly.

183. An IPW would serve as a first step toward improving Indigenous access to spectrum and developing Indigenous-led connectivity solutions. ISED acknowledges that accelerating efforts to close connectivity gaps in Indigenous communities is crucial to address the long-standing socio-economic and health inequities faced by Indigenous Peoples. ISED also believes addressing these inequities will be paramount to advance economic reconciliation, on a distinctions-based approach, with Indigenous Peoples.

184. Based on this rationale, and on feedback from Indigenous respondents, ISED will be implementing an IPW for access spectrum licensing processes. The opportunity to have access to spectrum will further greater autonomy in the telecommunication sector for Indigenous service providers, businesses and communities. ISED has initiated an engagement on Improving Indigenous Access to Spectrum: Draft Indigenous Priority Window Spectrum Policy Framework, where it is seeking to collaborate with interested Indigenous Peoples, communities, service providers, businesses and organizations on elements of the IPW, such as eligibility, process and duration.

Decision

6.6 Application windows for access spectrum licensing

185. As noted in section 6.5, ISED will accept applications for access spectrum licensing during the IPW and then accept general applications shortly thereafter. The general access spectrum licensing window will be opened to both IPW-eligible applicants and all other eligible applicants. Each application window will be open for a predetermined amount of time and no applications will be accepted outside of an application window. These windows ensure that access spectrum licensing is not available for an indefinite period if there is limited demand for such access.

186. Announcements of access spectrum licensing application windows will indicate the timing of the introduction of access spectrum licensing.

187. If ISED opens any subsequent access spectrum licensing windows for the same bands, it will advise stakeholders of the launch in a Spectrum Advisory Bulletin (SAB) on ISED’s Spectrum management and telecommunications website. These SABs would be published at least 6 months prior to opening an access spectrum licensing window. The SAB would specify the blocks available for access spectrum licensing as well as the duration of the windows.

Decision

6.7 Treatment of future deployments by existing spectrum licences

188. ISED proposed to prohibit existing primary and subordinate licensees (existing licensees) from deploying in areas for which an access spectrum licence has been issued, unless the access spectrum licensee and the existing licensee arrive at a mutually acceptable coordination agreement.

Summary of comments

189. Advintive, CCSA, CEA, CanWISP, Cogeco, Communications Télésignal, Eastlink, Ecotel, ECN, FMCC, Iristel, ITPA, the Internet Society and Mozilla, Motorola, Redline, TECHNATION, TELUS and Xplore all agreed with the proposal. Communications Télésignal added that an exception could be considered if the access licensee does not use the spectrum for an extended period of time.

190. Bell, Rogers, SaskTel and SSi all disagreed with ISED’s proposal. Bell stated that existing licensees should have the opportunity to deploy as long as they do not cause harmful interference with the access licensee’s deployment.

191. Rogers explained that the proposed condition of licence would limit existing licensees, whose licence terms continue for another 10 years, from expanding in rural and remote areas. Rogers also voiced concerns with ISED imposing a condition prohibiting incumbent deployments while increasing incumbents’ deployment requirements in the Cellular and PCS bands. Rogers suggested an alternative condition of licence in which the access spectrum licensee would be required to coordinate with the incumbent.

192. SaskTel objected to the proposed condition because it would prohibit existing licensees from deploying in areas once an access spectrum licence has been issued, impinging upon existing licensees who hold the right to the spectrum.

193. RMA remained neutral but noted that the proposal seems to encourage deployment for existing licensees, since they would lose the ability to deploy in areas where access licensees deploy.

Discussion

194. With the implementation of the access licensing framework, ISED seeks to ensure unused spectrum is put to use to better serve Canadians in rural and remote areas, whether by access spectrum licensees or existing licensees.

195. Coordination agreements are often used by licensees operating in adjacent areas to facilitate the deployment of new stations or expand their respective networks. ISED notes the concerns raised by stakeholders regarding the possibility for access spectrum licensing to limit the potential for existing licensees to expand into rural and remote areas. It also recognizes the uncertainty regarding the outcome or length of time required to complete a coordination agreement between two parties. This could infringe on the existing licensee’s ability to deploy new stations and may also deter potential access spectrum licensees from applying for these licences.

196. Given that access spectrum licences will overlap with existing licences and all licensees need certainty when investing in infrastructure, ISED agrees that there should be clarity with respect to when both existing licensees and new spectrum access licensees can deploy stations and how they will be protected. ISED is of the view that existing licensees should retain the right to deploy in all areas of their licence and not experience undue uncertainty of when they can do so. ISED also acknowledges stakeholder concerns that prohibiting existing licensees from deploying without first obtaining a coordination agreement with access spectrum licensees could delay use of the spectrum. The goal of the access licensing framework is to make use of unused spectrum in an efficient and timely manner by service providers planning to deploy in rural and remote areas. Based on this, ISED is implementing a process that allows access spectrum licensees to deploy in quick order while providing clarity to existing licensees on how ISED will treat their deployments throughout the access spectrum licensing process.

197. In light of these considerations, ISED has determined that the creation of a coordination agreement prior to deployment will not be required by the existing licensee in access spectrum licensed areas. Instead, these situations will be governed by coexistence rules. As such, ISED will not prohibit existing licensees from deploying in areas for which an access spectrum licence has been issued. However, where an existing licensee deploys in an area that has been made available for the access spectrum licence regime, deployments by the existing licensee will not be protected from interference caused by an access spectrum licensee’s deployments. Further, any existing licensee’s deployments must not cause interference to access licensee operations where an access licence has been granted.

Existing licensee deployments during application windows

198. ISED recognizes that the absence of protection from, and the requirement to protect, access licensee operations introduces risk and uncertainty that may undermine existing licensees’ future deployments in areas subject to access licensing, including those where no access spectrum licence has yet been granted. While ISED is of the view that this procedure is necessary for a limited period of time to allow access licensees to apply for the spectrum, ISED is not of the position that the situation should continue indefinitely. As decided in sections 6.6 and 6.8, ISED will adopt application windows, with a predetermined amount of time during which applications for access spectrum licences will be accepted by ISED. No applications will be accepted outside of an application window.

199. Any deployments by an existing licensee during an application window must not cause interference to, and will not be protected from, an access licensee’s operations in the same Tier 5 service area and same frequency block. As a result, these new deployments by an existing licensee will be made at the existing licensee’s risk until such a time as any announced application window closes and access licences are no longer available, in relation to operations within the same frequency block and Tier 5 service area. Upon the close of the application window, any such incumbent deployments will revert to the regular protection level if no access spectrum licence was granted. The block/area pairing will then be removed from the available access spectrum licences in future application windows. In the case where an access spectrum licence is granted, the existing licensee’s deployments must not cause interference to, and are not protected from, the access licensee’s operations, as long as the access spectrum licence is valid.

200. ISED will amend the existing licences to reflect these coexistence rules when applying the access license framework to a spectrum licensed band.

Decision

6.8 Process for making access spectrum licences available

201. ISED proposed multiple approaches to make access spectrum licences available.

Options for release of access spectrum licences

202. ISED sought comments on two options to release spectrum for access spectrum licensing. Under Option 1, ISED would release all undeployed spectrum blocks at once. This all-at-once process means that when a window opens, all available spectrum access licences would be made available to eligible applicants right away. A new service standard of 126 days would be applied. Eligible applicants would be permitted to apply for a maximum of 20 access licences in any 12-month period. Under Option 2, ISED would release blocks in tranches (e.g. 50 blocks at a time) for access licensing on a quarterly basis. Eligible applicants would be permitted to apply for a maximum of 5 access spectrum licences in any tranche.

Summary of comments

203. A majority of respondents, including CanWISP, Cogeco, Communications Télésignal, FCM, ITPA, Iristel, Kris Joseph and Michael B. McNally, Lyttonet, Redline and TELUS, expressed a preference for Option 1. Several described this option as being simpler, fairer and more flexible for applicants than Option 2. CanWISP expressed concerns that Option 2 could open itself up to influence, and that Option 1 would allow deployment to be determined by operator readiness and not the interests of those creating a prioritized release schedule. TELUS, Cogeco and FCM expressed concerns about the potential complexity of Option 2, and CanWISP, Communications Télésignal, Iristel and TELUS expressed concerns that regardless of how carefully or thoughtfully ISED might plan out a progressive release of access licensing spectrum, there would always be unforeseen effects or consequences to such an approach and that ISED should leave it to the market to decide how licences are distributed. TELUS opposed Option 2 as it would take years to release all of the available spectrum, counter to the stated objectives of the Consultation. CanWISP recommended that if ISED moved forward with Option 2, all service areas should be released within two years. ITPA further noted that Option 2 was preferred primarily by existing licensees with spectrum holdings affected by the new access licensing regime.

204. CCSA, Bell, Clearwater County, Rogers, Rural Municipalities of Alberta and SaskTel expressed a preference for Option 2. Rogers and the Rural Municipalities of Alberta argued that Option 2 would lead to a more orderly distribution of spectrum, while SaskTel commented that a gradual approach made more sense given the unknown level of demand for this spectrum. Bell stated that a sequential release would allow for sufficient time for a systematic verification of deployment, and suggested that 6 months between tranches would be most appropriate. CCSA, Clearwater County and Rural Municipalities of Alberta submitted that Option 2 would be more equitable, particularly for smaller operators who may benefit from spreading out the required capital expenditures needed to obtain the spectrum over time. Clearwater County expressed concerns that Option 1 might encourage operators to apply for more spectrum than needed in some areas, in an attempt to avoid missing out entirely.

205. ITPA expressed concerns that both options could potentially lead to unnecessary deployment delays. CEA recommended a hybrid approach, consisting of the release of an initial smaller tranche during which time ISED could resolve any minor difficulties in the initial licence application process, followed by the release of the rest of the spectrum all at once.

206. Regarding the service standard, TELUS and FCM stated that the choice of options should not be determined based on the longer service standard in Option 1, as the initially high demand is likely to be temporary. Communications Télésignal recommended that ISED re-evaluate the necessity of a longer service standard on a regular basis, and adjust accordingly. FMCC did not see the need for a longer service standard for Option 1, given the uncertainty of demand for access spectrum licences.

Discussion

207. Typically, ISED releases all frequency blocks in a given band at the same time on a first-come, first-served basis when the number of blocks and service areas available is relatively small. However, as discussed in section 5.3, ISED is seeking to implement the access licensing framework where there are sufficient amounts of unused spectrum in rural and remote areas. As such, ISED expects that the number of undeployed blocks that could be made available is far greater than previous FCFS spectrum releases. Both proposals (Option 1 and Option 2) were intended to address this large volume of potential applications under the FCFS model.

208. ISED notes that the majority of respondents preferred Option 1 due to the simple, straightforward and transparent nature of its design. Multiple respondents noted that implementing an approach that focuses on market demand, granting interested applicants the freedom to prioritize whichever spectrum is most desirable to them, would be more equitable and efficient in ensuring that spectrum is deployed as quickly as possible. ISED acknowledges that Option 2 carries a risk of unintentionally releasing blocks in such a way that some applicants and their plans could be favoured over others.

209. In relation to the proposed service standard associated with Option 1, ISED notes that while a service standard establishes a maximum allotted time for processing licensing requests, actual processing times may vary. Total actual demand for access spectrum licences remains an unknown. However, given the potential for a large initial number of applications, ISED is concerned that the current service standard for FCFS licensing could be unsuitable for access spectrum licensing. This longer service standard acknowledges the differences with other FCFS processes and will provide greater certainty to applicants as to the maximum amount of time they may wait for their applications to be processed.

210. For those respondents who preferred Option 2, their primary concerns appeared to be focused on ensuring an orderly and efficient process, with sufficient time allocated to allow for appropriate incumbent verifications. Some comments also suggested that Option 2 might prove more equitable for smaller providers, by virtue of allowing a more even distribution of capital expenditures over time.

211. As discussed in section 6.6, ISED is implementing an access licence window where it will only accept access licence applications for a limited period of time. If ISED used Option 2 with this approach, it would need to release a large portion of the available spectrum each quarter to ensure all spectrum is made available within the window. Further, with an application limit each quarter under a tranche approach, potential access licensees may not be able to obtain all the licences they seek within the application window.

212. In light of these considerations, ISED considers that Option 1 will best suit the access spectrum licence application window approach and allow operators to apply for licences as appropriate to their intended use case, while ensuring a reasonable processing time for the volume of applications received.

Decision

Application caps

213. Under both options for the release of spectrum discussed above, ISED sought comments on its proposals to limit the number of access spectrum licence applications to 20 per applicant per 12-month period under Option 1, or 5 per applicant at the opening of the access licensing process for each tranche under Option 2.

214. As discussed above, ISED has decided to implement an access licence application window. As such, ISED will not limit the number of applications an applicant can submit or the number of licences that an applicant can request in an application window.

Timing of launch of access spectrum licensing

215. ISED sought comments on its proposal to begin access spectrum licensing three months after the publication of the decision.

Summary of comments

216. Some stakeholders, including BCBA, CanWISP and Lyttonet, supported the release of access spectrum licences as soon as possible, while others, including Iristel and ITPA, had no objections to the 3-month timeline. SaskTel expressed concerns that this short time period could have an unintended negative effect on rural deployment, and was not sufficient for existing spectrum licence holders to consider future deployment plans. Both Bell and Rogers considered the proposed timeline inappropriate and recommended 5 years for the launch of access spectrum licensing. Rogers recommended that ISED be mindful that a reasonable build time for a new tower, particularly in a rural or remote area, is 18 months. Rogers added that a short timeline might generate regulatory uncertainty, particularly when considering the recent review of the deployment conditions in the PCS and Cellular bands. Bell further commented on the lack of precedent for such a short timeline, and further suggested that a 10-year time frame might be optimal.

217. Cogeco submitted that a 5-year time frame would be unreasonable given the current need for further network development in rural and remote areas. Rather, it considered that releasing the spectrum 18 to 24 months after the publication of the decision would be more reasonable, allowing incumbent operators to accelerate and finalize their existing deployment plans, while also providing an opportunity for other service providers to prepare to deploy in areas made available through access spectrum licensing.

218. TELUS asked that ISED consider how to best balance the goals of access licensing with a need for a stable and predictable regulatory environment. While it did not oppose a 3-month release timeline for the PCS and Cellular bands, it had strong reservations over the use of this timeline for other bands that may become subject to access licensing in the future.

Discussion

219. ISED’s approach to access spectrum licensing must support timely deployment in areas and frequencies where existing licensees have not deployed, particularly where these licences have been issued and renewed for many years. In ISED’s view, an appropriate time frame for the launch of access spectrum licensing would not compromise incumbents’ deployment plans, but would allow potential applicants to develop plans for the use of access spectrum licences.

220. Given the ongoing engagement on an Indigenous priority window as discussed in section 6.5, ISED will not proceed with its initial proposal to launch access spectrum licensing 3 months after the publication of this decision. Instead, ISED will launch access spectrum licensing after it has concluded its engagement on the Indigenous priority window. Please see the Table of Key Dates for more information concerning timelines.

221. As described in section 6.6, ISED will make access spectrum licences available using a window approach, where licences will be available for a predetermined period of time.

222. ISED will also publish a Spectrum Advisory Bulletin (SAB) to advise incumbents and potential access spectrum licence applicants of the timing of the IPW and the initial general access spectrum licensing window. The SAB will further describe the duration of the windows and the deadline for applications.

Decision

223. In the Consultation, based on the proposed principles, ISED proposed to initially apply the access licensing framework to the 800 MHz cellular (Cellular) band (824-849 MHz/869-894 MHz) and the Personal Communications Services (PCS) blocks A to F band (1850-1910 MHz/1930-1990 MHz).

Summary of comments

224. The majority of the respondents supported making Cellular and PCS available for access spectrum licensing in rural and remote Tier 5 service areas where there is no service offered by existing licensees. Supporters included BCBA, CCSA, CanWISP, Cogeco, Com Com Services, Communications Télésignal, Eastlink, Ecotel, ECN, FMCC, ITPA, Iristel, Lyttonnet, Motorola, Québecor, Redline, TELUS and Twincomm.

225. Other respondents opposed making Cellular and/or PCS available for access spectrum licensing for a variety of reasons. Bell, Rogers, SaskTel and SSi reiterated their opposition to access licensing as a whole, arguing that it should not be implemented in Cellular, PCS or any other bands. Rogers further argued that the increased deployment requirements, as outlined in the Decision on Amending Cellular and Personal Communications Services (PCS) Licence Conditions (the Cellular and PCS Licence Conditions Decision), combined with additional funding, will result in continued public network coverage and capacity expansion in the next few years. Further, Rogers argued that access licensing would pose challenges to future deployment by existing licensees, and advocated instead for commercial subordination rather than access licensing. SaskTel stated that access licensing should only be implemented on the condition that the existing licensee has not deployed spectrum in the given Tier 4 area, rather than Tier 5 area. Further to this, SaskTel argued that a tier should only be available for access spectrum licensing if the existing licensee has failed to deploy any spectrum block in that tier, including but not limited to PCS and Cellular blocks, and has no plans to deploy in the future.

226. While most respondents favoured either both bands, or neither, the Internet Society and Mozilla supported the use of the Cellular band for access spectrum licensing, but did not comment on the proposal to use the PCS band. In its comments, Wilson Engineering suggested that unused spectrum between 614 MHz and 800 MHz should only be made available for wireless fixed broadband usage in low-density population areas.

227. A few respondents offered some additional suggestions related to the proposal to make Cellular and PCS available. Advintive suggested that the blocks within both the Cellular and PCS bands should be combined into larger individual blocks rather than being split into multiple small blocks. They argued that if ISED were to combine multiple blocks into one, it could support the provision of 50/10 Mbps data in rural and remote communities. Both JBCCS and ECN noted the importance of subordinate licensing for Indigenous and rural and remote communities, and asked that access licences not interfere with existing deployments in the Cellular or PCS bands. Xplore noted that while the proposed Cellular and PCS bands are strong candidates to serve Canadians in rural and remote areas, it argued that ISED should only implement either access licensing or the Decision on Amending Cellular and Personal Communications Services (PCS) Licence Conditions to the PCS band, but not both.

Discussion

228. The Cellular band is used primarily to provide commercial mobile wireless services, as well as some fixed services. Licences were first issued in 1983 through a process of comparative review, with one 20 MHz sub-band (Block A) licence granted to Rogers and the other 20 MHz sub-band (Block B) licensed to various telecommunications common carriers across Canada. Initially, 5 MHz of spectrum for each of blocks A and B was reserved for future use, but in 1989 the reserved spectrum was allotted to each block and assigned to the existing licensees, thus forming the current band plan of two paired blocks of 25 MHz each. Figure 1 shows the current band plan for the Cellular band.

Figure 1: Cellular band plan

229. The PCS band is used primarily to provide commercial mobile services, as well as some fixed services. Licences in part of the band were first issued in 1995 through a process of comparative review, which resulted in the issuance of two national 30 MHz licences, a single national 10 MHz licence, and 11 regional 10 MHz licences. A total of 40 MHz was held in reserve, with 52 spectrum licences awarded through a 2001 auction process, and the remaining licences were made available on an FCFS basis starting in 2003. The current PCS band plan is shown in figure 2.

Figure 2: PCS band plan

230. Both the Cellular and PCS bands benefit from mature equipment ecosystems. The 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) has standardized the technical specifications for LTE Band 5 and Band 2, which cover the Cellular and PCS frequency bands, respectively, to operate with frequency-division duplex (FDD) technologies. Furthermore, 5G Bands n5 and n2 have already been standardized under the 3GPP 5G New Radio (NR) standards for these aforementioned bands.

231. In March 2023, ISED released DGSO-002-23, Decision on Amending Cellular and Personal Communications Services (PCS) Licence Conditions, which increased deployment requirements for these bands. Access spectrum licences in these bands will further promote ISED’s coverage objectives.

232. Through comments received, ISED notes that the majority of respondents, primarily WISPs, Indigenous groups, and other small service providers, supported the proposal to make the Cellular and PCS bands available for access spectrum licensing. Those in opposition to offering access spectrum licences in these two bands did so as part of their wider opposition towards the access licensing framework as a whole. While ISED notes these concerns, ISED maintains that incumbent licensees in the Cellular and PCS bands have had sufficient time to deploy services, and these bands offer favourable technical attributes that make them well suited to being made available under the access licensing framework.

233. Based on the discussion above, ISED is of the view that the Cellular and PCS bands meet the principles in section 5.3. As such, ISED will apply the access licensing framework to these two bands.

234. Annex C of this decision contains the preliminary list of Tier 5 service areas and frequency blocks that will be made available for access spectrum licensing in the Cellular and PCS bands. As detailed in this list, ISED estimates that 715 blocks of spectrum are currently available for access spectrum licensing. Incumbent licensees are encouraged to review this preliminary list and update their uploaded Spectrum Management System (SMS) data as necessary.

Decision

7.1 Changes to the Cellular band to allow flexible use

235. To facilitate these changes to the Cellular band, ISED sought comments on its proposal to modify the Canadian Table of Frequency Allocations (CTFA) to change the existing fixed service allocation to primary status in the 824-849 MHz/869-894 MHz range, noting that the fixed service is already allocated on a primary basis in the 890-894 MHz portion. As noted in the Consultation, in the CTFA, the PCS band is already allocated to the fixed and mobile services on a co-primary basis. As a result, no further changes are required to the CTFA to enable flexible use licensing in the PCS band.

Summary of comments

236. BCBA, CCSA, CanWISP, Ecotel, FMCC, ITPA, SaskTel, Twincomm and Xplore generally supported the proposal to modify the CTFA to enable flexible use licensing across the entire cellular band (i.e. 824-849 MHz/869-894 MHz). Other respondents such as Advintive, CEA and Communications Télésignal agreed that the proposed modifications to the CTFA would align with the objectives set out by ISED to provide additional flexibility to operators.

237. TELUS did not oppose the proposal; however, it expressed that it does not support the introduction of high power and highly directional point-to-point or point-to-multipoint fixed service applications which could, in its opinion, introduce new coordination and coexistence challenges to the band.

Discussion

238. ISED acknowledges the concerns regarding the potential interference due to the operation of high power point-to-point or point-to-multipoint applications in the Cellular band. All operations in the band, both mobile and fixed services, must adhere to the applicable technical standards, which include coexistence and coordination requirements, as discussed further below in section 7.4.

239. To enable flexible use licensing in the Cellular band, ISED is also of the view that modifying the CTFA to elevate the fixed service allocation to co-primary status in the 824-849 MHz and 869-890 MHz bands would permit greater flexibility to both existing spectrum licensees and access spectrum licensees to provide a range of services to Canadians. It would also enable operators to continue to support data-intensive commercial mobile applications, and to provide broadband Internet services to homes or private networks.

240. Modifying the CTFA such that both the mobile and fixed service allocations have co-primary status in the Cellular band would align with the licensing approaches taken in other commercial mobile bands to allow flexible use services, including the 600 MHz, 3500 MHz, 3800 MHz and 3900 MHz bands.

241. Given the above, ISED will modify the CTFA, as proposed and as shown in table 1, below, to change the existing fixed service allocation to primary status in the 824-849 MHz and 869-890 MHz bands, noting that the 890-894 MHz band is already allocated to the fixed service on a co-primary basis. Treatment of the existing licences issued under the previous secondary fixed service allocation is discussed in section 7.3, below.

Decision

7.2 Changes to the condition of licence for existing Cellular and PCS spectrum licences

242. ISED proposed to amend the condition of licence concerning international and domestic coordination for all existing spectrum licences in blocks A and B of the Cellular band and blocks A through F, inclusively, of the PCS band. The proposed condition of licence stated that where an access spectrum licence has been issued, the existing licensee may only deploy in the area licensed to an access spectrum licensee where the two licensees have entered into a coordination agreement.

Summary of comments

243. CanWISP, BCBA, CCSA, CEA, Communications Télésignal, Ecotel, FMCC, ITPA, Iristel, Motorola, SaskTel, TELUS and Xplore all agreed with the proposal.

244. Rogers opposed the amendment, as in its view it would give access licensees the ability to control certain areas over the existing licensees. Alternatively, Rogers, Bell and SSi proposed a condition of licence that would require access licensees to reach a coordination agreement with existing licensees.

245. In order to offer flexibility in future shared spectrum policies, the Internet Society and Mozilla advised ISED to use more generic wording, to clarify that licences do not confer exclusive use and that ISED could issue licences in the future to other operators to use some or all of the licensed spectrum.

Discussion

246. As indicated in the discussion in section 6.7, existing licensees in bands where ISED applies access spectrum licensing will be subject to a condition of licence indicating how their deployments will operate relative to an access spectrum licensee’s operations. ISED will not require the access spectrum licensee and existing licensee to negotiate coordination agreements, although they may choose to do so to address potential interference.

247. To enable access spectrum licensing, ISED will amend the condition of licence for all existing Cellular A and B block and PCS A to F block spectrum licences to add the provisions discussed below.

Decision

7.2.1 Coexistence with existing stations deployed by Cellular and PCS spectrum licensees and by subordinate licensees

248. ISED also sought comments regarding coexistence between existing Cellular and PCS stations and access spectrum licence operations in adjacent service areas. ISED also proposed that existing Cellular and PCS stations under spectrum licences would not be required to coordinate with new access spectrum licence operations.

Summary of comments

249. CEA, Communications Télésignal, FMCC, the Internet Society and Mozilla, Iristel, Motorola, Redline, Rogers, SaskTel, SSi, TELUS and Xplore all agreed with the proposal.

250. A few stakeholders, including Bell, CanWISP, CCSA, Ecotel and ITPA, gave their partial agreement to the proposal, with some suggested changes. CCSA, Ecotel and SSi all agreed that existing deployment configurations by incumbents should be protected. However, they also proposed that any changes to that configuration following the granting of access spectrum licences, including new sites, should be coordinated with the access licensee.

251. CanWISP agreed with the proposal, but reiterated concerns that incumbents might abuse interference protections to limit access licence deployment. It suggested a dispute resolution process whereby access licensees could challenge claims of interference by incumbents should the need arise. Bell agreed with the requirement to protect existing licensees, but stipulated that the appropriate boundary should be the access licensee’s deployment boundary and not the boundary of the Tier 5 service area. ITPA agreed with the proposal, but noted that these protections might prevent deployment into Tier 5 areas where adjacent Tier 5 areas are protected. It suggested that ISED consider coverage from adjacent systems before determining that a spectrum block has not been deployed to a Tier 5 system.

Discussion

252. Under the access spectrum licensing framework, ISED will not release a Tier 5 service area for access spectrum licensing if any portion of that Tier 5 area is served by an incumbent’s existing deployment from either within that Tier 5 area or from an adjacent Tier 5 area. This approach will mitigate the potential for interference between existing incumbent stations and access spectrum licensee stations. As such, no additional protection for existing Cellular and PCS deployment is required. All existing Cellular and PCS stations are required to comply with applicable coexistence rules contained in the appropriate technical standards and requirements.

253. In the Cellular and PCS bands, existing licensees have already deployed based on Tier 2, 3, 4 or TEL service area licence boundaries, and have not been required to consider Tier 5 boundaries within these licenses. Going forward, an access licensee who deploys in a Tier 5 area might therefore interfere with an existing licensee that has deployed in an adjacent Tier 5 area. If there were no requirement for access licensees to protect incumbents’ stations, the incumbent would need to either coordinate with the access licensee or protect the access licensee’s deployments. Under both scenarios, the incumbent’s existing use of the spectrum could be disrupted, which in turn could affect the level of service the incumbent is currently providing to customers.

254. Access licensing is intended to encourage the use of undeployed spectrum, without disrupting incumbents’ existing service. Therefore, ISED will require that access spectrum licensees comply with the applicable technical standards, including measures and procedures applicable at the service area boundary to enable coexistence for operations in adjacent service areas. ISED expects that all licensees will provide complete, accurate and timely site data uploads, as this data will be necessary to facilitate coexistence.

Decision

7.2.2 Coexistence of future stations deployed by existing Cellular and PCS spectrum licensees and by subordinate licensees

255. ISED sought comments on its proposal that any future stations deployed by existing Cellular and PCS spectrum licensees would be subject to the coexistence rules in Standard Radio System Plan SRSP-503, Technical Requirements for Cellular Systems Operating in the Bands 824-849 MHz and 869-894 MHz, and SRSP-510, Technical Requirements for Personal Communications Services (PCS) in the Bands 1850-1915 MHz and 1930-1995 MHz, applied at the new Tier 5 service area boundary where an access spectrum licence has been issued.

Summary of comments

256. BCBA, CanWISP, CCSA, CEA, Communications Télésignal, Ecotel, FMCC, ITPA, the Internet Society and Mozilla, Iristel, Redline, SaskTel, TELUS and Xplore generally supported ISED’s proposal. TELUS added that if the access licence is returned or revoked, this boundary coordination requirement should no longer apply to the existing licensee or its subordinate licensee.

257. On the other hand, Rogers emphasized in its comments and reply comments that it believes that access licensees should operate on a no-interference, no-protection basis and that existing licensees should not be limited in their ability to increase their own network coverage. Furthermore, it is of the view that while new installations by the existing licensee should not cause harmful interference to prospective access licensees, existing licensees should not be subject to the SRSP-503 and SRSP-510 requirements at the new Tier 5 service area boundary. Instead, the existing licensee should coordinate with the access licensee, with the coordination requirements included as a part of the access licensee’s conditions of licence.

258. TELUS noted in its reply comments, that it supported Rogers’ suggestion that ISED should also explore updating the Canadian Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) / Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) spectrum to allow for broadband uses while also relocating public safety users to another band. TELUS suggested that this would improve coexistence at the US border and allow Canada to take advantage of the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) power rules.

Discussion

259. ISED must establish the technical obligations between existing licensees and future access licensees in the Cellular and PCS bands in order to ensure coexistence between systems. Coexistence rules provide a specified level of protection from interference to licensed operations and help to mitigate interference issues that can otherwise occur. Relying on clearly defined coexistence rules in ISED’s technical standards will allow all operators, both new and existing, to make critical business decisions to design, invest and deploy their networks.

260. Licence applicants have the ability to take initial steps to assess the feasibility of their proposed network by performing technical studies using the coexistence guidelines set forth in ISED’s technical standards and by accessing existing deployment data in ISED’s SMS. This initial and independent evaluation reduces administrative burdens on both the licence applicants and ISED, and circumvents any unnecessary need to engage with other parties at this initial phase.

261. As such, to enable coexistence between future stations deployed by existing Cellular and PCS spectrum licensees and by access spectrum licensees in adjacent areas, the coexistence rules contained in the current applicable technical standards will apply at the Tier 5 service area boundary.

Decision

7.3 Treatment of existing radio licences operating in the Cellular and PCS bands

262. ISED has issued a number of radio licences in the Cellular and PCS bands. Past spectrum licensing in the band has triggered the displacement of existing radio licensees, as described in CPC-2-1-09, Displacement of Fixed Service Stations Operating in the 2 GHz Frequency Range to Accommodate Licensed Personal Communications Services (PCS). ISED proposed that existing radio licensees operating standard systems in the PCS band be protected from access spectrum licensees and access spectrum licensees could not trigger displacement of these radio licensees. However, under ISED’s proposal, existing radio licensees with non-standard systems, or conditions of licence requiring them to operate on a no-interference, no-protection basis, would not be protected.

Summary of comments

263. Most stakeholders who had views on this question indicated their support for the proposal, including Bell, CanWISP (supported by BCBA), CCSA, CEA, Cogeco, Communications Télésignal, Ecotel, FMCC, ITPA, the Internet Society and Mozilla, Iristel, Motorola, Redline, Rogers, TELUS and Xplore. A number of stakeholders did not comment on the proposal.

264. SaskTel and SSi did not support the proposed access licensing framework but stated that they would agree with ISED’s proposal regarding radio licensees in the PCS band if the framework were implemented. Similarly, Rogers, while opposed to most aspects of the proposed framework, stated that allowing a licensee to trigger a displacement or coordination remediation on existing deployments would negate the objectives of the Consultation. For its part, Ecotel suggested that access spectrum licensees, like the original PCS spectrum licensees, should be able to trigger the displacement of existing radio licensees.

Discussion

265. In the Cellular band, ISED notes that existing secondary fixed service licences are either operating on a developmental basis or are operating off-shore. Although the fixed service allocation has now been elevated to primary status, as per section 7.1 above, these existing fixed service licences were issued under a secondary allocation and will therefore remain secondary to primary services, including the flexible use services operating under co-primary fixed and mobile service allocations in the Cellular band. That is, these existing secondary fixed services may continue to operate and will continue to do so on a no-interference, no-protection basis with respect to primary services, including access spectrum licensed services.

266. In the PCS blocks, while the intent of the access licensing framework is to put unused spectrum to use and not to displace existing users of the spectrum, CPC-2-1-09 provides for the orderly displacement of the fixed stations in these bands. As indicated in CPC-2-1-09, existing fixed stations have been subject to a licensing moratorium since 1994 and have been subject to displacement since 2008. No change is proposed to these existing provisions. However, given that the principle of access licensing is to provide for use only where spectrum is not currently in use, areas with existing fixed services operating under a secondary allocation will not be made available for access spectrum licensing. Radio licences operating with conditions of licence requiring them to operate on a no-interference, no-protection basis will continue to operate on that basis.

Decision

7.4 Conditions of licence for access spectrum licences in the Cellular and PCS bands

267. Section 6.4 sets out the general conditions of licence for access spectrum licences. ISED will apply these general conditions to access spectrum licences in the Cellular and PCS bands. As discussed in section 6.4, ISED will consider specific requirements (e.g. deployment requirements) and additional conditions (e.g. requirements set out in the policies for a specific band) on a band-by-band basis. The additional conditions that are specific to access spectrum licences in the Cellular and PCS bands are described below and incorporated in annex B.

Decision

7.4.1 Deployment requirements for access spectrum licences in the Cellular and PCS bands

268. As discussed in section 6, ISED will set the deployment requirements on a band-by-band basis and provided a summary of comments in that section. In the Consultation, ISED proposed to align the deployment requirements for the access spectrum licences in the Cellular and PCS bands to the Decision on Amending Cellular and Personal Communications Services (PCS) Licence Conditions.

Summary of comments

269. Comments received related to deployment requirements were generally not focused on applying them to Cellular and PCS licences. As such, the comments related to this section were discussed at length throughout section 6.4.4. Please refer to that section for the summaries of comments related to deployment conditions.

270. Additionally, there were numerous comments received related to the introduction of new deployment conditions for the PCS and Cellular licences, discussed through the Consultation on Amending Cellular and Personal Communications Services (PCS) Licence Conditions. In particular, ISED received comments from Bell and Rogers indicating concerns with the introduction of these new deployment conditions alongside the access licensing framework.

Discussion

271. The deployment requirements generally applied to existing commercial mobile or flexible use bands such as Cellular and PCS could be difficult for access spectrum licensees to meet, particularly given the variety of use cases (e.g. mobile service, private networks, etc.) that ISED wishes to encourage through access spectrum licensing. ISED has, however, proposed and established other types of deployment requirements for other bands. These other types of deployment requirements can be based on whether the licensee has deployed, as in the Non-Competitive Local Licensing Framework; or the number of stations deployed, as in the mmWave Consultation. As with access spectrum licensing, these other licensing frameworks apply to small licence areas or for shorter licence terms than other kinds of spectrum licences.

272. ISED has considered these recent licensing approaches in light of the concerns raised by stakeholders regarding population coverage-based deployment requirements, and considers that a station-based deployment requirement would be appropriate for access spectrum licences in the Cellular and PCS bands. Such an approach has the advantage of being consistent and straightforward for licensees. It also takes into account that the licence terms and service areas of access spectrum licences are considerably different from other flexible use or commercial mobile spectrum licences.

273. Access spectrum licence deployment requirements for the Cellular and PCS bands will be based on the number of stations per total population in the Tier 5 area of the licence. For the purposes of this decision, a station will be defined as any collection of radios, transmitters or receivers with identical GPS coordinates, regardless of elevation. For example, if multiple antennas exist at various heights, such as different levels of a building, but the same latitude/longitude are registered to the same licence, they would be counted as a single station for the purposes of this deployment requirement. Conversely, if antennas are in close proximity but are located at differing GPS coordinates (i.e. different location in degrees/minutes/seconds), these would be counted as separate stations.

274. For the Cellular and PCS bands, ISED analyzed the levels of deployment achieved by existing licensees in rural and remote Tier 5 areas. This analysis showed that where licensees have deployed in these bands in rural and remote Tier 5 areas, in most cases they have achieved a level of deployment of between 1 station per 5,000 population and 1 station per 20,000 population.

275. Based on this analysis, ISED has determined that access spectrum licensees in the Cellular and PCS bands will be required to meet a deployment requirement of 1 station per 10,000 population in the first term of their licence, and maintained throughout subsequent terms. Only stations that are actively being used for radiocommunication (as defined in the Radiocommunication Act) shall be considered valid deployments for the purposes of meeting this condition. Most Tier 5 populations do not align with exact multiples of 10,000; ISED will therefore round up population figures for the calculation of required sites. For example, a Tier 5 with 1,600 people will require 1 station, and a Tier 5 with a population of 12,000 will require 2 stations, and so on.

276. ISED will rely on licensees’ site data uploads to the SMS to determine compliance with this requirement; consequently, all licensees are reminded of their obligation to submit site data in accordance with their condition of licence regarding the provision of technical information (described in annex B of this decision).

277. ISED acknowledges the proposals made by some respondents to introduce additional end-of-term deployment reporting requirements. ISED already requires licensees to provide annual reporting on their spectrum licences, including updates on the implementation and spectrum usage within the area covered by each licence. As such, ISED does not deem additional end-of-term reporting to be beneficial at this time.

278. ISED also notes the proposals made by some respondents to introduce a continuous or graduated approach to deployment, with subsequent licence renewals including additional deployment requirements. The Minister retains the right to set and amend conditions of licence and may choose to revisit the access spectrum licensing framework in the future, at which time it may also be appropriate to revisit deployment conditions of licence.

279. Finally, ISED notes the concerns raised by some stakeholders regarding the implications of access spectrum licensing on incumbents’ ability to meet their deployment conditions. In the case of Cellular and PCS licensees subject to the Cellular and PCS Licence Conditions Decision, where ISED has issued an access spectrum licence in the same block in a Tier 5 service area falling within an existing licensee’s service area, ISED will subtract the Tier 5 area population from the incumbent’s Tier 4 deployment requirement. The existing licensee will be required to serve the same percentage of the Tier 4 population, but the size of the population to be served will be reduced by the amount of population in the Tier 5 access spectrum licence area for as long as that access spectrum licence is in effect.

Decisions

7.4.2 Fees for access spectrum licences in the Cellular and PCS bands

280. As discussed in section 6.4, access spectrum licensees will be required to pay annual fees and these fees will be based on the fee regime already established for the bands where ISED applies the access licensing framework. As such, ISED will apply the common licence fee regime in DGRB-005-03, Radio Authorization Fees for Wireless Telecommunication Systems that Operate in the Radio Frequency Bands 824.040 MHz to 848.970 MHz, 869.040 MHz to 893.970 MHz or 1850 MHz to 1990 MHz, to the Cellular and PCS access spectrum licences.

7.4.3 Technical requirements for access spectrum licences in the Cellular and PCS bands

281. ISED sought comments on the proposal to generally adopt the same technical requirements, including coordination requirements, as published in the respective Radio Standards Specifications (RSS) and Standard Radio System Plans (SRSP), RSS-132, Cellular Systems Operating in the Bands 824-849 MHz and 869-894 MHz, and SRSP-503 for the Cellular band, and RSS-133, 2 GHz Personal Communications Services, and SRSP-510 for the PCS band for future access spectrum licences in these respective bands.

Summary of comments

282. BCBA, Bell, CanWISP, CEA, Cogeco, Communications Télésignal, Ecotel, ITPA, Motorola and Rogers supported the proposal. CanWISP noted that this proposal would continue to support the existing equipment ecosystems, as well as enable coexistence between operations by different operators. Rogers added that having access licensees conform to the same technical requirements would reduce the risk of potential interference to existing licensees. It further stated that access licensees should, as part of their conditions of licence, have to ensure their operations do not impact the existing coverage of existing licensees.

283. Communications Télésignal was of the view that ISED should adopt the same technical requirements for the equipment given that the equipment has already been certified to these standards and there has been plenty of time for an ecosystem to develop. Iristel agreed with the proposal, but suggested that ISED should remain open to potential changes where they might be necessary and where they can be accommodated without causing interference to other licensees’ operations.

284. FMCC suggested that coordination and field strength criteria may not be relevant in remote regions where there is no other use of the band. They argued, for example, that in certain locations, increased field strength may allow the signal to reach Indigenous people engaging in activities such as hunting, fishing and trapping far away from their communities. Additionally, in its reply comments, Clearwater County requested that ISED does not unnecessarily limit options for the uses of equipment, noting that further north of the shared Canadian-US border there would not be the same needs for interference and coordination requirements.

285. Advintive and Lyttonet were opposed to ISED’s proposal. Advintive was of the view that the technical requirements should be adjusted to reflect the use of the band. In its opinion, if the equipment system was changed to suit the new use of the spectrum, the equipment specifications should also be modified accordingly. Advintive suggested that the band could be repurposed for use by RRBS, for instance, which would necessitate different technical requirements.

286. Lyttonet argued that while the existing technical requirements are well suited for large network deployments within a local area, a preferable method for smaller deployments would be based on the projected coverage area. It outlined the fact that the terrain in different areas may create its own geographical boundaries that don’t necessarily align with the service area boundaries proposed by ISED and therefore a database-driven model for avoiding interference would be preferred rather than strict tier boundaries.

Discussion

287. ISED believes that adopting the same technical standards for the equipment and system deployments for the access spectrum licensing, as outlined in the respective RSS and SRSP, would benefit all licensees by ensuring that they can take advantage of the mature equipment ecosystems in addition to ensuring that all operators can successfully coexist.

288. The current technical standards have enabled the deployment and coexistence of incumbent systems. By applying the same set of technical requirements to access spectrum licences in the respective bands, access spectrum licensees will be able to leverage the existing deployment and coordination practices followed by incumbents when deploying their own systems, thereby minimizing the potential for interference to operations in adjacent geographic areas. This would provide certainty to both incumbent and new access spectrum licensees, while also promoting coexistence between licensees in adjacent geographic areas.

289. ISED also acknowledges stakeholder proposals to develop technical requirements suitable to specific use cases, such as RRBS. ISED has traditionally maintained a technology-neutral approach when developing its technical standards in most spectrum bands. This approach has allowed flexibility and stimulated innovative uses cases. ISED will continue to follow a technology-neutral approach in the access licensing framework to enable operators to design and deploy networks to reflect their business plans.

290. As such, ISED will generally adopt the same technical requirements, including any applicable coexistence and coordination requirements, as published in RSS-132 and SRSP-503 in the Cellular band, and RSS-133 and SRSP-510 in the PCS band, for access spectrum licences. This includes, among other technical requirements, adhering to the specified boundary condition such as the maximum field strength or power flux density (pfd) limit for the given band, where applicable, at the Tier 5 service area boundaries. ISED will consult with stakeholders to revise the existing technical standards, as appropriate, to reflect the applicable changes.

Decision

7.5 Decision to rescind RP-019, Policy for the Provision of Cellular Services by New Parties

291. As indicated in the Consultation, Radio Systems Policy RP-019, Policy for the Provision of Cellular Services by New Parties, was introduced in 1998 as a way to provide for secondary licensing for a limited range of services; however, utilization of the policy had been limited. With the proposal of the access licensing framework, ISED noted its view that RP-019 was made redundant and rescinded this policy, effective August 16, 2021.

292. ISED sought comments on any additional bands that ISED could consider for future release under the access licensing framework.

Summary of comments

293. Comments received varied but Advintive, BCBA, CEA, CanWISP, Cogeco, Com Com Services, Communications Télésignal, Ecotel, FPAC, ITPA, the Internet Society and Mozilla, Iristel, Lyttonnet, Motorola, Redline, TELUS and Twincomm all suggested possible spectrum bands for expansion.

294. There were a variety of potential bands suggested in responses, including all 3GPP bands, AWS-1, AWS-3, PCS G, 450 MHz, 600 MHz, 700 MHz, 2300 MHz, and the 2500 MHz bands. Cogeco and Iristel went a step further and suggested that any band that is undeployed should be available under the access licensing framework. Ecotel similarly suggested that any band that has not been put to use 5 years after its initial licensing should be made available under access licensing. TELUS argued that access licensing should be expanded to all bands in their renewal term, and argued for a similar “use it or share it” model for bands in their initial licence terms. Xplore offered a slightly different suggestion, and argued that access licensing could be applied to other bands and be used as an enforcement tool alongside deployment conditions (i.e. if a licensee fails to meet deployment conditions, access licensing could be used as a penalty for those missed requirements).

295. Finally, there were a handful of respondents who suggested that access licensing should not be expanded to other bands, including Bell, Rogers and SSi. Further to this, Rogers argued that access licensing should not be expanded to any band in its initial auction term, viewing that as a fundamental change to the terms under which the spectrum was purchased.

Discussion

296. ISED recognizes the high degree of interest in the potential expansion of access licensing to other bands as evidenced by comments received. Bands which appear to be most desired based on this feedback include 700 MHz, AWS-1 and 2500 MHz. ISED is not presently committing to the addition of any specific bands under the access licensing framework, but notes that this framework may be applied to other bands at a future date, subject to future consultation processes.

Decision

297. In the Consultation, ISED proposed a framework for site-specific access radio licensing as a complementary solution for supporting private networks for businesses and communities in rural and remote Tier 5 service areas in current radio licensed bands.

298. This section discusses the licensing process for access radio licences, including licence areas, treatment of existing licences in the band, eligibility, and conditions of licence.

9.1 Site-specific access radio licences

299. ISED sought comments on its proposal to issue site-specific broadband radio licences within rural and remote Tier 5 service areas in spectrum bands otherwise used by narrowband systems under the access licensing framework. Access radio licensing would align with ISED’s current radio licensing regime so that annual, renewable radio licences would be issued on an FCFS basis subject to passing a technical analysis.

Summary of comments

300. Of the comments received on these proposals, most were in favour of making vacant spectrum available for the proposed access radio licences. Some organizations were not in favour of the access licensing framework and remained opposed to the radio licensing option on that basis.

301. CanWISP supported ISED's proposal for site-specific licensing noting that “private network operators wishing to use the Cellular or PCS bands may be better served by access radio licensing than by access spectrum licensing, since private networks are generally more limited in geographic scope.” BCBA supported CanWISP’s view.

302. Clearwater County supported the idea of access radio licences, as it would make smaller areas available than Tier 5. Other respondents were concerned about protecting primary and subordinate incumbents.

303. Advintive and Clearwater County emphasized their support for site-specific access radio licensing. Clearwater County commented that the Land Mobile Radio (LMR) licensing process is effective in coordinating a large number of independent licence holders.

304. To enable existing licensees to continue expanding their own network coverage in rural and remote areas, Rogers recommended that ISED issue site-specific access licences to both public and private network operators.

305. TELUS noted the ISED proposal differs little from the current radio licensing regime as both operate using site-based licensing under FCFS processes. Similarly, Bell supported the issuance of site-specific access radio licences within rural and remote Tier 5 service areas, as it is appropriate and consistent with the existing LMR or fixed licensing approach.

Discussion

306. LMR and fixed systems are issued through a site-based radio licensing regime. As with the decisions for access spectrum licences, ISED will align with the original licensing approach when applying the access licensing framework to bands identified for access radio licences. Aligning with the same site-specific regime when applying the access licensing framework to radio licensed bands will allow ISED to manage interference to existing LMR and fixed licensees while giving flexibility to access radio licensees to deploy in localized areas.

307. As discussed in section 5, ISED will make access radio licences available on an FCFS basis within rural and remote Tier 5 service areas where there is unused spectrum. Given that ISED would be managing the access radio licences on a site-by-site basis, it can determine spectrum availability and the potential for interference to existing LMR and fixed licensees on a case-by-case basis. As such, when identifying bands for access radio licensing, ISED will allow access radio licensing in all rural and remote Tier 5 service areas where there is unused spectrum.

Decision

9.2 Process for making access radio licences available

308. ISED sought comments on following its LMR licensing process to receive and review applications for access radio licences. ISED proposed no restriction on the number of access radio licence applications that an applicant may submit.

Summary of comments

309. Rogers commented that to reduce potential interference and administrative burden to existing licensees, there should be a limit of 20 access radio licence applications in a 6-month period. It also suggested commercial subordination for larger systems with many sites.

310. CanWISP proposed a limit of 20 applications per 12-month period and noted that an application for several contiguous blocks in one Tier 5 area or an application for the same spectrum block in adjacent Tier 5 areas should be considered as one single application.

311. Bell said ISED should review each application to ensure that applicants are able to deploy the spectrum within a 12-month period and supported Rogers’ recommendation limiting a single applicant to 20 applications in a 6-month period.

Discussion

312. ISED proposed to follow current LMR licensing processes outlined in Radio Standards Procedure RSP-101, Licence Application Submission Procedure for Planned Radio Stations Below 960 MHz, as well as the associated technical standards. The procedure requires applicants to state their short- and long-term spectrum requirements, but does not require roll-out plans. In general, ISED expects authorized radio systems to be operational within a reasonable time frame, from the date of authorization.

313. To avoid or mitigate potential interference, radio licensing requires upfront operational and technical data as part of the application. ISED uses that information to perform technical analysis to determine if nearby existing licensees will be impacted. Licensees also need to submit modification requests if they plan to change their systems, at which time ISED performs the same analyses to ensure ongoing harmonious use of spectrum. Since the radio licensing process requires upfront analysis, radio licensees are not required to submit site upload information or provide build plans. Furthermore, radio licensing processes do not permit subordinate licensing since typically, areas of operation are small and tailored for the intended use.

314. The existing process would not cause any administrative burden to existing licensees. Since radio licences are issued only when ISED has determined that the spectrum is available, when the impact to existing licensees is negligible. ISED does not believe limiting the number of applications is necessary for access radio licensing.

Decision

9.3 Eligibility

315. Section 9 of the Radiocommunication Regulations (the Regulations) lists the general eligibility criteria to hold fixed and mobile radio licences. In the Consultation, ISED sought proposals for specific eligibility criteria for access radio licences, such as those who present a plan for a specific private network. ISED also sought comments on whether it should limit licensing to either “radiocommunication users” or both “radiocommunication users and service providers,” as defined in the Regulations.

Summary of comments

316. Cogeco and Redline recommended a reasonable implementation timeline for the framework, such as 18 to 24 months from the date of this decision. They argued this would provide the necessary time for service providers to initiate their plans and for incumbents to finalize their existing deployment plans.

317. CEA recommended that an application should be stamped by a qualified radio frequency engineer, which is similar to Redline’s recommendation of an applicant presenting deployment plans developed by a vendor or project management firm specializing in radio systems. CEA also recommended criteria that support applications from critical infrastructure operators, such as First Nations, municipalities and WISPs, while Redline recommended limiting to a user or its agent.

318. Communications Télésignal, Clearwater County, ECOTEL and Bell were of the view that access radio licensing should be open to all radiocommunication users and radiocommunication service providers, and some indicated that those meeting the appropriate regulatory reporting requirements should not be subject to additional deployment conditions. Iristel expressed the view that including radiocommunication service providers would allow providers to give access to specific clients, such as those in the logging and mining industries.

319. Lyttonet and Ecotel argued that priority should be given to non-private networks. Ecotel provided examples such as facility-based telecommunications providers, Mobile Network Operators, full Virtual Mobile Network Operators and industrial associations.

320. ITPA suggested a third option where a small player with spectrum holdings would be eligible for access radio licences, as typical smaller entities do not have spectrum in sufficient quantity to be commercially viable.

Discussion

321. ISED sought comments on whether to limit eligibility to only radiocommunication users or if issuing licences to radiocommunication service providers should also be permitted. However, many of the comments received were related to commercial mobile operations and such criteria would prevent many from applying for private networks, and thereby potentially hinder the development of systems in rural and remote areas.

322. In the Spectrum Outlook 2023 to 2027, ISED recognized that spectrum policy should seek to address the needs of companies and organizations that operate in industries such as mining, oil and gas, manufacturing, transportation, agriculture, energy, and health, that have traditionally used a mix of public and private networks to meet their connectivity needs. ISED is of the view that the access licensing framework provides an opportunity for these companies and organizations to access the spectrum they need to support their business in rural and remote areas. In particular, the framework could enable efficient access for private networks, including broadband use, in the identified bands. In addition, ISED recognizes that the access licensing framework can provide opportunities for other users, including Indigenous communities and municipalities, to provide a variety of services. To accommodate these users, ISED will limit access radio licence eligibility to radiocommunication users.

323. ISED notes that commercial mobile spectrum licensees already hold large amounts of spectrum and have always had the capacity to offer private networks using their licensed spectrum. Issuing access radio licences in selected bands serves as an alternative for businesses and communities where commercial mobile spectrum is not a viable option.

324. Limiting eligibility to radiocommunication users does not prevent such users from partnering with radiocommunication service providers. In this way, radiocommunication service providers will still be able to provide tailored solutions to their clients, such as those in the logging and mining industries. Through business arrangements, service providers and other contractors can continue to provide infrastructure and maintain networks for radiocommunication users. The licensed radiocommunication user would remain responsible for ensuring that they satisfy all conditions of licence.

Decision

9.4 Conditions of licence for access radio licences

325. ISED proposed to align the conditions of licence for access radio licences with those currently applied to radio licences for LMR systems. The licensee must also comply with CPC-2-0-03, Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems.

326. In addition, ISED asked if it should include a condition requiring that licensees provide any additional technical information that might be requested by ISED, beyond what is included in the licence application, within 30 calendar days following such a request from ISED.

Summary of comments

327. Bell and Rogers recommended that access radio licensees be required to provide a summary of all data. Bell also commented that the uploaded sites should match the submitted deployment plan or be revoked. Rogers recommended to cancel licences that have sites that are not uploaded or sites showing no usage as a way to deter anti-competitive behaviour.

328. FMCC and the Internet Society and Mozilla were concerned that there is no mention of expectation of renewal, and FCM said the deployment conditions should be met prior to renewal of access spectrum licences.

329. Rogers supported the proposal to only issue access radio licences with 1-year terms, while ECOTEL and FCM suggested multi-year licence terms for economic reasons and to reduce administrative burden.

Discussion

330. Access radio licensing is an FCFS process, focused on avoiding or mitigating potential interference through technical analysis to ensure harmonious operation of new licensees with incumbents within or adjacent to a given operational area. This is achieved by requiring upfront operational and technical data on the proposed wireless system. Therefore, as previously mentioned, the access radio licensing process does not require deployment plans or regular data uploads.

331. Many supported the proposal of renewable 1-year terms through the current radio licensing process, as defined in the Regulations. ISED notes that some felt a multi-year term would reduce administrative burden and provide economic benefits. However, this would require changes to the Regulations and updates to the radio licensing process. Changing the Regulations would significantly delay the implementation of access radio licensing.

332. ISED recognizes that a longer licence period can provide investment certainty. However, ISED notes that many existing LMR and fixed licensees have been using their annual radio licences for decades, have been able to upgrade their systems when necessary, and have made investments in large systems (e.g. province-wide public safety LMR systems) under a licensing process where their licences are renewed annually. Similarly, access radio licences issued on an annual basis have a reasonable expectation of re-issuance provided they remain in good standing and fees are paid by March 31 of each year.

333. Given that technical information is provided up front in the licensing process and that the Minister has the power to require information through section 5(1) of the Radiocommunication Act, ISED has determined that the 30-day requirement is unnecessary.

Decision

334. ISED sought comments on two proposed bands for initial access radio licensing. The first proposed band was for 3/3 MHz for broadband services in the range 897.5-900.5 and 936.5-939.5 MHz portion (US Band 8) of the current 900 MHz LMR band (896-901 and 935-940 MHz). This proposed band would align with spectrum use policies in the US. The second proposed band was for 5/5 MHz for broadband services in the range 896-901 MHz and 941-946 MHz, which covers a portion of the 900 MHz LMR band and portions of bands currently set aside for a variety of applications in the fixed and mobile services, shown in figure 3, below. This second proposed band would align with a portion of the 3GPP band plan for band 8 (3GPP Band 8).

335. In both cases, the proposed bands would be implemented as overlays to existing services and licences. These licences would be available for flexible use applications in rural and remote Tier 5 service areas for locations where potential for harmful interference to existing operations is not expected.

336. ISED also sought comments on the availability of equipment for the 900 MHz LMR band. Further, ISED sought comments on the potential use cases of 3/3 MHz for broadband services.

Figure 3: Proposed band plans for the 900 MHz radio access licensing

Summary of comments

337. With regard to the 900 MHz LMR band, Bell, CanWISP, CCSA, CEA, Cogeco, Communications Télésignal, Ecotel, FMCC, Iristel, ITPA, the Internet Society and Mozilla, Motorola, RAC, Redline, Rogers, TELUS and Xplore supported ISED’s proposal to allow access radio licences for broadband use in rural and remote Tier 5 service areas provided all existing LMR operations are protected. Ecotel, on the other hand, suggested that the 900 MHz broadband use be made available not only in rural and remote areas, but everywhere in Canada where this spectrum is available. Highlighting the need for Canada to modernize the 900 MHz band, TELUS recommended that ISED place a moratorium on new licensing in the full 900 MHz band and open a consultation promptly to enable mobile broadband use in the 900 MHz band across the country.

338. Even though 3/3 MHz is included as an option in the 3GPP LTE standard, the Internet Society and Mozilla noted the limitation of having only 3/3 MHz of spectrum, since the majority of LTE manufacturers provide equipment requiring a minimum of 5/5 MHz of spectrum. However, given that current radio equipment is increasingly defined by software as opposed to hardware, they were of the view that manufacturers will be able to make available modified 3GPP Band 8 equipment. CEA, Ecotel, Iristel and ITPA indicated that the supply of equipment for the proposed 3/3 MHz broadband services is, and likely will remain, limited due to its deviation from the typical 3GPP Band 8 band plan. Motorola and Redline mentioned that the broadband equipment designed for the 900 MHz US market was already available from multiple vendors, with equipment modifications being possible based on market demand. Rogers further stated that in discussions with manufacturers, there appeared to be successful trials using modified 3GPP Band 8 equipment to operate in the 900 MHz LMR band. As such, Rogers believed that there would likely be a ready and growing ecosystem by the time regulatory changes to the 900 MHz LMR spectrum were completed.

339. Cogeco indicated that the potential use of 3/3 MHz for LTE services is possible, but might be limited to either low throughput applications or coverage layer for Voice over LTE services with limited mobile broadband. This view was opposed by Bell and Rogers, who believed that 3/3 MHz can provide material speed and capacity for private network operations. CanWISP also noted that while 3/3 MHz is of limited use in providing 50/10 broadband services (i.e. 50 Mbps download speed and 10 Mbps upload speed), it may have applications in private networks, such as providing a secure and isolated control and monitoring channel for commercial networks, controlling unmanned aerial or terrestrial vehicles at remote industrial sites, and providing operational support to emergency response teams. Similar to CanWISP, Communications Télésignal suggested that 3/3 MHz could be used for monitoring equipment or telemetry. While agreeing with CEA and Cogeco that the minimum channel width currently required for 5G is 5 MHz, Rogers noted that initial work was already done to define a 3/3 MHz FDD carrier in 5G standards. Bell provided support to Rogers’ comments by stating that the 3GPP Release 16 activities also included features related to the enabling of Machine-Type-Communications and narrowband Internet of Things (LTE-MTC / NB-IoT) devices to connect to the 5G core network.

340. With regard to 3GPP Band 8, Bell, CanWISP, CCSA, CEA, Communications Télésignal, Ecotel, FMCC, ITPA, the Internet Society and Mozilla, Lyttonnet and Redline indicated their view that it is feasible to make both the 3GPP Band 8 and 900 MHz LMR bands available at the same time, even though they overlap in spectrum. Respondents underlined the benefits with this band of having access to more spectrum and of having access to the well established 3GPP Band 8 equipment ecosystem. In addition, CEA, Ecotel and Redline were of the view that coordination challenges with incumbent services would be minimal, even though 3GPP Band 8 does not align with Canadian incumbent band plans. In order to simplify coordination with the US, Ecotel, supported by CEA, further suggested that the 5/5 MHz band plan should only be made available outside of border areas; within the border areas, only the US 900 MHz LMR band plan should be allowed. On the other hand, Motorola opposed making 5/5 MHz available as this would impede future alignment with the US 900 MHz LMR band plan. RAC agreed that enabling 5/5 MHz for broadband services would be more beneficial in the short term from an equipment availability perspective. However, in the long term, it was of the view that it is in Canada’s best interest to harmonize with the US band plan to avoid inefficient use of the spectrum in border areas. Similarly, Rogers, supported by Bell, recommended that a future consultation be initiated to align with the US 900 MHz LMR band plan across Canada.

341. Comments were also received on both the 900 MHz LMR band and 3GPP Band 8 from RAC who, while supporting the access licensing framework, noted that the railway industry has a significant deployment of radios on the 6 pairs of Advanced Train Control System channels within a portion of the 900 MHz LMR band, which would also need to be protected regardless of which band plan is used.

Discussion

342. With nearly all of respondents supporting the 3/3 MHz proposal, ISED is of the view that allowing broadband use in the 900 MHz LMR band would be appropriate as an initial band in rural and remote areas to enable users to take advantage of next generation applications. It could benefit the safety, security and productivity of industries operating in rural and remote areas. Some respondents suggested making this broadband spectrum available in all parts of Canada. However, as discussed in the Consultation, a full re-banding process for existing 900 MHz LMR licensees would be required, taking several years to complete. Since one of the objectives of the access licensing framework is to support the timely provision of broadband services in remote and rural areas, ISED is of the view that it is more beneficial to move forward now in these areas while considering full alignment across the country in the future.

343. In response to the Consultation, most respondents indicated that the availability of broadband equipment supporting the US 900 MHz LMR band plan was limited at this time. ISED is of the view, as supported by some respondents, that this is a result of US 900 MHz broadband deployment being still in its early stages. As time goes on, increasing demand is expected to drive growth in the availability of this equipment. This view is further supported by the 3GPP’s recent ratification of the US 900 MHz LMR band plan (band 106) for LTE use as well as the anticipated ratification of this band plan for 5G use by early 2024 (band n106).

344. ISED notes that some respondents supported also making the 5/5 MHz band plan (3GPP Band 8) available at the same time as the 3/3 MHz band plan to gain access to more spectrum and take advantage of the existing 3GPP Band 8 equipment ecosystem while others were opposed based on the importance of having a harmonized band plan with the US. ISED is of the view that having similar band plans between Canada and the US will facilitate coexistence along the border. As such, aligning with the US 900 MHz band plan provides the best long-term success for the future use of this band. Moreover, with the inclusion of the US 900 MHz band plan in the 3GPP standard, ISED is of the view that a robust equipment ecosystem should emerge in short order.

345. The current LMR licensing is limited to mobile service and available only for narrowband channels. Given that the access radio licences in the 900 MHz band will be broadband, ISED is of the view that allowing both mobile and fixed applications under the 900 MHz access radio licences provides licensees such as private network users the ability to access new technologies and will enable innovations to support diverse needs and use cases. As such, ISED will allow both mobile and fixed applications by access radio licensees.

346. ISED is of the view that access radio licensing benefits Canadians living in rural and remote areas and as such has already made the spectrum available through the interim process in remote areas implemented by the Consultation. ISED intends to extend access radio licensing to all rural areas as soon as the relevant technical standard (i.e. SRSP-506, Technical Requirements for Land Mobile and Fixed Radio Services Operating in the Bands 896-901 MHz and 935-940 MHz) is updated.

Decisions

10.1 Changes to the 900 MHz band to allow fixed and mobile applications

347. Currently, in the CTFA the lower portion of the 900 MHz LMR band (896-901 MHz) is allocated to the mobile service and fixed service on a co-primary basis, and the upper portion (935-940 MHz) is allocated on a primary basis to the mobile service and on a secondary basis to the fixed service. Given the decision to allow mobile and fixed use in the 936.5-939.5 MHz band, consequentially, ISED will modify the CTFA by adding a new Canadian footnote to elevate the fixed service allocation to co-primary status in this band in rural and remote areas as shown in table 2, below.

ADD Czz In the frequency band 936.5-939.5 MHz, the use of fixed broadband service within rural and remote Tier 5 areas will be given co-primary status with respect to mobile service.

10.2 Technical requirements for access radio licences in the 900 MHz band

348. ISED sought comments on its proposal to use the same methodology for determining geographic separation for both co-channel broadband operations and broadband/narrowband operations as already included in SRSP-506 for narrowband land mobile and fixed systems. ISED also sought comments on whether the 1.5 MHz and 500 kHz of frequency separation are sufficient to protect the adjacent band services in the 894-896 MHz, 901-902 MHz, 932.5-935 MHz and 940-941 MHz bands (including Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, Fixed Service and Narrowband Personal Communications Service) from broadband services in the range 897.5-900.5 MHz and 936.5-939.5 MHz.

Summary of comments

349. Bell, CanWISP, Communications Télésignal, ITPA, Motorola and Rogers supported ISED’s proposal to use the same methodology for determining geographic separation for broadband service as already included in SRSP-506 for land mobile systems. In addition, Bell, Communications Télésignal, ITPA and Motorola agreed that the 1.5 MHz and 500 kHz of separation are sufficient to protect the adjacent band Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, Fixed Service and Narrowband Personal Communications Service from the proposed broadband use in 897.5-900.5 MHz and 936.5-939.5 MHz. Furthermore, Bell and Rogers suggested that specific technical details should be reviewed by the Radio Advisory Board of Canada (RABC).

Discussion

350. ISED will take these views into account in its update of the technical rules for the 900 MHz LMR band (i.e. SRSP-506), which will be developed in consultation with stakeholders, including the RABC.

351. Until Canada and the US update cross-border arrangements to account for changes in use, future broadband operations in Canada-US border regions remain subject to existing sharing arrangements, currently designed for narrowband operations. The arrangements include limitations on channel usage, since the 900 MHz narrowband channels are divided between the two countries on a primary and secondary basis. A Canadian 900 MHz broadband user located near the border area may be required to operate on a secondary basis to US operations in a portion of the spectrum.

Decision

352. Subordinate licensing can support the provision of wireless services in rural and remote areas, where spectrum is sometimes underutilized. It can also enable innovations in wireless network uses in cases where the spectrum would otherwise go unused.

353. Subordinate licences require the approval of the Minister. ISED’s procedure for issuing subordinate spectrum licences across all bands is set out in section 5.6.3 of CPC-2-1-23, Licensing Procedure for Spectrum Licences for Terrestrial Services (the CPC).

354. Section 5.6.4 of the CPC sets out a framework for ISED’s assessment of proposed transfers, including subordinate licence requests, in commercial mobile bands (the spectrum licence transfer framework). The core of the spectrum licence transfer framework is ISED’s analysis of the change in spectrum concentration that would result from a proposed transaction (i.e. the proportion of commercial mobile spectrum in the control of different licensees) and the ability of the applicants and other existing and future competitors to provide services, given the post-transfer concentration of commercial mobile spectrum in the affected licence area. To assist in determining whether, how, and to what extent the change in concentration would affect the availability of services, the spectrum licence transfer framework also lists eight wide-ranging factors that may be relevant to ISED’s assessment in each individual case.

355. In the Consultation, ISED sought comments on a number of proposals related to subordinate licensing. These included comments sought on potential or actual benefits of subordinate licensing to increase rural broadband access and accommodate new innovative network usage, ways in which to streamline the general application requirements and processes for subordinate licences, and other ways ISED could facilitate subordinate licensing and encourage secondary market transactions, including:

• Should additional changes be made to existing licences that will encourage the use of subordinate licences as a means to help deploy more services?
• Given ISED’s regulatory role, are there any issues or actions ISED should consider?

356. ISED acknowledges the receipt of a number of comments related to the proposals on subordinate licensing in the Consultation. However, as will be discussed throughout the remainder of this section, comments received will be considered as part of a future update to the spectrum licence transfer framework, as announced by the Minister.

Discussion

357. It is expected that demand for spectrum will continue to increase in the years to come as operators implement 5G network technologies. ISED is releasing or planning to release additional spectrum for flexible use, including commercial mobile services, in the 3800 MHz and mmWave bands. However, subordinate licensing will remain a critical enabler of access to spectrum, particularly by small players, service providers in rural and remote areas, and operators who require access to more precise amounts of spectrum, whether by geography, frequency or licence expiration date.

358. As stated in the CPC, applicants for subordinate licences in commercial mobile bands must submit material addressing eight factors that may be relevant to ISED’s assessment of each individual case. However, many applicants for subordinate licences are small or inexperienced players in the wireless services sector. As such, the CPC’s information requirements may have the unintended effect of placing a significant administrative burden on these applicants, despite the clear benefits of subordinate spectrum licensing to the Canadian public interest. Moreover, as noted in the Consultation, the length of time required for ISED to assess and render a decision on a subordinate licensing request has been identified by stakeholders as one of the challenges to accessing unused spectrum.

359. ISED has at times observed, in its reviews of subordinate licence requests to date, that the commercial subordination agreement between the applicants raises issues relating to the control of the primary licence. Certain clauses in the commercial agreement may appear to indicate, for example, that the subordinate licensee would have a degree of decision-making authority over any eventual transfer of the primary licence to another party. In these cases, ISED communicates its concerns to the applicants and advises them that given the nature of the commercial agreement, it cannot process the request as an application for a subordinate licence.

360. The Minister announced on March 31, 2023, that ISED will conduct a comprehensive review of Canada’s spectrum licence transfer framework. Given this review, ISED is of the view that stakeholders and potential subordinate applicants would be better served through a dedicated update document rather than splitting the decisions into multiple processes. As such, the comments on subordinate licensing received from the Consultation, as well as the above discussion, will be considered as part of the upcoming spectrum licence transfer framework review.

Decision

11.1 Licensee interaction: Information required to consider subordination requests

361. ISED sought comments on the sample subordination form provided in annex D of the Consultation. ISED also noted that the use of this form is entirely voluntary, and reiterated that the form would not be used by ISED to evaluate subordination requests.

Summary of comments

362. BCBA, Communications Télésignal, CanWISP, Eastlink, Iristel, SSi, TELUS and Xplore all supported the inclusion of the form.

363. ISED also received some additional suggestions from supportive respondents. Iristel argued that subordinate applicants should have space in the form to provide their expectations of renewal, and also believed that the existing licensee should be required to provide a timeline of future use. TELUS offered a specific suggestion for ISED to standardize the geographic section of the form. TELUS suggested that potential applicants applying for a subsection of an area should be required to provide geospatial data in a standardized format, preferably MapInfo .TAB, for the area they are seeking subordination. Only ITPA suggested using something other than the form, arguing that providing a geographical representation of mobile and flexible use spectrum licences, which would be maintained by ISED, would be a better option to facilitate subordinate licensing than the form provided. Advintive, Bell and Rogers did not support or oppose the inclusion of the form, but did provide further comments on its contents. Advintive argued that it may be more useful for existing licensees to suggest the level of detail that they would require, rather than ISED prescribing it. Bell said it was unclear how necessary the form was and noted that they provide details on their requirements for applicants upon request. Similarly, Rogers noted that the information in the form was already similar to what it requests from potential subordinate licensees.

Discussion

364. In order to improve the efficiency of the secondary market, ISED provided a sample subordination form in annex D of the Consultation. This form was meant to facilitate discussions between licensees and assist secondary market transactions by providing existing licensees with sufficient information to adequately evaluate such requests.

365. While ISED notes that there were fewer comments regarding the subordination form from respondents, the general support received from those who did respond indicates value in providing such a form as a means to support the secondary market.

366. While some respondents did indicate skepticism on the necessity of such a form, ISED notes the inspiration for this form came from WISPs, who indicated challenges with the subordination process and had experienced difficulty in determining how to initiate discussions with existing licensees. As such, there is demonstrated value in providing such a form to assist in streamlining the subordination process, should an applicant chose to use it.

367. Given the use of such a form is entirely voluntary, ISED does not believe it should be prescriptive over data formats to be used within the form. Such a requirement may create undue barriers to some smaller regional operators’ ability to put the sample form into use. As such, ISED will be republishing the form as originally proposed in the Consultation.

367. ISED believes that the form could be subject to future additions, adjustments or changes to the format that ISED deems necessary. As such, rather than republishing the form within this decision paper, ISED will instead publish the subordination form on its website. Doing so will allow easier access to the form, and ensures that future changes can be implemented with ease.

Decision

369. White space refers to spectrum that is not being used by licensed radio services at particular times and in certain geographic areas, thus making that spectrum available for use by other services. White space devices (WSDs) operate in the frequency ranges 54-72 MHz, 76-88 MHz, 174-216 MHz, 470-608 MHz and 657-663 MHz on a licence-exempt basis. Although rules to permit WSD operation have been in place for a number of years, a full ecosystem of equipment vendors and database service providers has been available since April 2021 to support the use of this technology. A number of current and potential WISPs, rural broadband and other Canadian service providers have already deployed or are planning to deploy WSD to support Internet service delivery, especially in rural and remote areas.

370. Prior to the introduction of white space and the decisions for the 600 MHz auction, ISED issued remote rural broadband systems (RRBS) licences in unused TV broadcasting channels 21 to 51 (512-698 MHz) in locations that are more than 121 km from the Canada-US border and at a sufficient distance from major population centres. In 2014, ISED placed a moratorium on new applications for RRBS licences through SLPB-005-14, Consultation on Repurposing the 600 MHz Band, in order to facilitate the repurposing of the 600 MHz band.

12.1 White space devices

371. The key components of white space technology include white space databases (WSDB), white space database administrators (WSDBA) and WSDs. A WSDB is a third-party database that maintains records of all licensed services that operate within the frequency bands allowed for potential white space use. Based on this information, a WSDB is able to identify allocated channels that are unused by licensed radio services at specific times and geographic locations. WSDBs are administered by WSDBAs. A WSD is a radio apparatus that operates in the white space-designated frequency bands using opportunistic access to spectrum identified by the WSDB. When operating, a WSD provides its geographical location to a WSDB, which in return provides it with a list of available channels (spectrum) for use. WSDs operate on a licence-exempt basis under the control of a WSDB, which ensures the protection of licensed users of the spectrum, such as broadcast TV and RRBS.

372. A full ecosystem of WSD and WSDBA has been in place since 2021 and a significant and growing number of deployments have since been completed. ISED expects that white space technology, in combination with other technologies such as 5 GHz and 6 GHz Wi-Fi, will increasingly be used to provide broadband coverage in rural and remote areas.

373. In addition, the practical experience obtained from the use of white space technology may facilitate the development of future dynamic spectrum access (DSA) technologies, which is a key to making more spectrum available through improved spectrum sharing techniques.

12.1.1 Database hosting location

374. Currently, in order to be eligible to be designated as a WSDBA, applicants must establish and maintain duly delegated personnel/representatives within Canada. Additionally, the main elements of each database essential to the operational control of spectrum access and interference must currently be hosted within Canada. The requirement to host the WSDB in Canada was intended to facilitate the execution of agreements with ISED that require compliance with provisions related to a WSDBA’s eligibility, security, reliability, authentication, synchronization, interface between database administrators and privacy.

375. In the Consultation, ISED sought comments on its proposal to remove the current geographic restriction on database hosting in order to facilitate cloud-based database hosting solutions.

Summary of comments

376. BCBA, CanWISP, CCSA, CEA, FMCC, FPAC, the Internet Society and Mozilla, Microsoft, RED Technologies, Redline and Xplore supported the proposal to remove the current geographic restriction on database hosting in order to facilitate cloud-based database hosting solutions. Microsoft and RED Technologies were of the view that the requirement to maintain duly delegated personnel/representatives within Canada should also be removed. Although welcoming the proposal, TELUS stated that the database providers need to demonstrate that they will design their systems to meet the requirements deemed necessary by Canadian operators (e.g. security, privacy, reliability, and standards compliance) as well as be compliant with all appropriate Canadian laws and regulations. Similar views were also shared by 6Harmonics and Communications Télésignal. Further to their support, BCBA and CanWISP stated it would encourage more database administrators to enter the Canadian market, bringing additional competition to TV White Space (TVWS) operators. While not objecting the proposal, ITPA was pessimistic about whether more database administrators would enter the Canadian market.

377. Advintive, Bell, Dr. Gregory Taylor and Rogers were in favour of continuing the current restriction on database hosting to protect the privacy of Canadian data, maintain Canada’s communication data sovereignty and ensure security of information.

Discussion

378. ISED notes that most respondents were supportive of removing the current geographic restriction on database hosting. However, database providers would still be required to demonstrate that their systems meet necessary security, privacy and reliability requirements in accordance with all appropriate Canadian laws and regulations.

379. The geographic requirement for database hosting in Canada has resulted in a barrier to potential WSDBs providing service for the Canadian market since it goes against the nature of cloud computing to link certain data to a specific geographic location, which results in expensive custom solutions.

380. WSDBs are typically hosted by reputable cloud service providers employing multiple layers of security and encryption protocols to ensure data security. ISED is of the view that these cloud service providers provide equal to or better levels of data security than a WSDBA hosting the data on its own network, even if the database is located in Canada. As part of the application evaluation process, ISED verifies that the WSDB is hosted by a reputable cloud service provider.

381. Finally, the signing of WSDBA Agreement Terms and Conditions, together with the requirement that the WSDBA must establish and maintain duly delegated personnel/representatives within Canada, ensures that the WSDB meets all necessary security, privacy and reliability requirements in accordance with all appropriate Canadian laws and regulations. ISED will update CPC-4-1-01, Application Procedures for White Space Database Administrators (WSDBAs), to reflect the decision.

Decision

12.1.2 TV channels 3 and 4

382. In SMSE-012-12, Framework for the Use of Certain Non-broadcasting Applications in the Television Broadcasting Bands Below 698 MHz, it was specified that WSD were not allowed to access TV channels 3 and 4 (60-72 MHz) to minimize interference risks to consumer electronic devices, which at that time continued to use these channels to interface and connect to analog television sets. In SMSE-003-19, Decision on the Technical and Policy Framework for White Space Devices, ISED permitted the operation of fixed WSD in these TV channels, recognizing technological advancements in consumer devices including the transition to the use of dedicated cables, such as high-definition multimedia interface (HDMI) to connect video devices to television sets. As a result, typical televisions and consumer electronic devices no longer rely on using TV channels 3 and 4 to connect to each other and therefore the use of these TV channels by any type of WSD is unlikely to cause interference to these devices.

383. ISED sought comments on its proposal to allow the use of TV channels 3 and 4 by all types of WSD.

Summary of comments

384. 6Harmonics, Advintive, CEA, Communications Télésignal, the Internet Society and Mozilla, Microsoft, Redline, RED Technologies, SaskTel and Xplore supported the proposal to allow the use of TV channels 3 and 4 by all types of WSDs. Further to their support, SaskTel stated that the consumer ecosystem for televisions and video devices has evolved to the point where there would be no significant impact from the use of channels 3 and 4 for WSDs. While supporting the proposal, CCSA and FMCC emphasized that incumbent spectrum users should be protected from WSDs. ITPA and TELUS did not oppose the proposal.

385. Wilson Engineering opposed the proposal, indicating these channels should be given to RRBS. Rogers expressed concerns that the use of WSD in channels 3 and 4 could still affect consumers who use older TVs with analog service, especially low-income Canadians, or those found in rural vacation properties.

Discussion

386. ISED notes that nearly all of the respondents supported the proposal to allow the use of TV channels 3 and 4 by all types of WSDs and agreed that the consumer ecosystem for televisions and video devices has evolved to the point where there would be no significant impact from the use of channels 3 and 4 by WSDs. In order to ensure the protection of incumbent spectrum users in these channels, ISED will update Database Specification DBS-01, White Space Database Specifications, and RSS-222, White Space Devices (WSDs), to reflect the changes, in consultation with stakeholders.

Decision

12.2 Rural remote broadband systems

387. The policy decision to allow RRBS licences was established in 2004 in accordance with Spectrum Utilization Policy SP 746, Mobile Service Allocation Decision and Designation of Spectrum for Public Safety in the Frequency Band 746-806 MHz, and then further refined in RP-006, Policy for the Use of 700 MHz Systems for Public Safety Applications and Other Limited Use of Broadcasting Spectrum, published in 2006. The licensing framework related to these radio licences is outlined in CPC-2-1-24, Licensing Procedure for Remote Rural Broadband Systems (RRBS) Operating in the Band 512-698 MHz (TV channels 21 to 51).

388. Unlike WSDs, which use automated spectrum database systems, RRBS systems are licensed on a site-by-site basis, including a detailed individual technical evaluation by ISED to ensure there will be no harmful interference to existing spectrum users, in particular TV broadcasters. RRBS are licensed on a no-interference, no-protection basis in relation to the broadcasting service, on condition that they do not constrain the provision of existing or future TV broadcasting services or cause harmful interference to existing spectrum users.

389. Although there has been interest in RRBS, use of these systems remained limited within the 7 years from when RRBS licensing was first permitted until the 2014 moratorium for a variety of reasons. These reasons included limited population numbers and market size once regions near major population centres and within 121 km of the US border were excluded. Furthermore, the small size of the Canadian-only market also led to limited equipment selection, and the lack of economies of scale kept the cost of available equipment high.

390. Given the lack of uptake after nearly a decade of spectrum availability and the need to ensure a stable spectrum environment for the repacking of television stations transitioning from the 600 MHz band repurposed for commercial mobile systems, a moratorium on the licensing of new RRBS systems was put in place in 2014. Moreover, RRBS operating in the band 614-698 MHz were subject to displacement by the 600 MHz auction licensees.

391. Although both RRBS and white space technologies can provide Internet service in rural markets through the use of similar spectrum with similar radio propagation environments, ISED is of the view that white space technologies will provide a greater opportunity for supporting rural and remote broadband coverage in the long term.

392. As such, ISED sought comments on its proposal to no longer renew existing RRBS licences after March 31, 2027.

Summary of comments

393. 6Harmonics, CanWISP, CEA, Communications Télésignal, FMCC, FPAC, the Internet Society and Mozilla, Redline, Rogers and Xplore supported the proposal to no longer renew existing RRBS licences after March 31, 2027. 6Harmonics and CanWISP welcomed the focus on a regulatory framework based on white space devices. CanWISP observed that the TVWS equipment ecosystem was developing and expected that it would continue to develop. In addition, 6Harmonics proposed to create another WSD category with comparable power limits as those of RRBS to ensure suitable replacement equipment would be available for RRBS users. CEA noticed that there had been a moratorium in place since 2014 and new technology was available. ITPA and TELUS did not oppose the proposal and stated that favouring white space systems over RRBS could lead to development in spectrum sharing techniques that would benefit Canadian consumers and foster the fulfilment of ISED policy objectives. Rogers stated that phasing out RRBS would allow all licensees and operators to harmonize coordination and protection with a single access regime. They also expressed concerns over updating RRBS standards or allowing WSDs to operate at higher power levels due to the potential interference impacts to incumbent licensed operators.

394. Advintive, First Broadband, Dr. Gregory Taylor, JBCCS, SeaBoard Group, Spuzzum First Nation and Wilson Engineering opposed the proposal. They jointly believe that RRBS’s shortfalls were the results of ISED-imposed technical and regulatory limitations as well as the moratorium set in place to support over-the-air TV repacking. They suggested that RRBS licensing be strengthened and encouraged. In their view, RRBS technology is a better solution than TVWS, and both technologies can coexist with each serving different communities. JBCCS also requested that ISED consider a more comprehensive consultation and study on RRBS before making a decision.

395. While noticing that the majority of commenters supported the proposal, Bell suggested that prior to March 31, 2027, ISED should review the extent to which white space devices have evolved and are being used to determine whether existing RRBS licences should be renewed. Highlighting their opposition to the proposal, in their reply comments, Kris Joseph and Michael B. McNally suggested the re-examination of phasing out RRBS. British Columbia Broadband Association suggested that existing RRBS systems should be allowed to operate until they reach the end of life of the RRBS equipment. GNWT urged ISED to conduct and publish the results of its outreach with RRBS users before proceeding with the phase out to ensure their concerns were well heard.

Discussion

396. As noted in the Consultation and supported by some of the respondents, white space technologies will provide a greater opportunity for supporting rural and remote broadband coverage in the long term. As WSDs operate on a licence-exempt basis through DSA systems, the users of WSDs do not have to apply for approvals from ISED nor pay a radio licence fee. Therefore, WSDs can be deployed in a more nimble and scalable fashion than RRBS, as they do not require the same level of technical and regulatory interventions as needed for RRBS's authorization. In addition, white space policy and technical frameworks have been implemented in other countries, such as the US and the UK. White space ecosystems can therefore be leveraged, providing economies of scale.

397. ISED continues to believe that as the markets for RRBS and white space are primarily composed of areas that are currently unserved or underserved, it is unlikely that there would be interest in deploying both technologies in the same community. ISED is of the view that the benefits of harmonizing with the broader international ecosystem, the flexibility of deployment, and the lower cost of DSA approaches used by WSD technologies will ultimately result in more public benefits, especially for rural and remote communities currently underserved in terms of broadband services. Consequently, phasing out RRBS after March 31, 2027, will, in addition to freeing up more spectrum for WSDs, provide a better long-term outlook for secondary use of over-the-air (OTA) TV bands since it consolidates the two majority secondary users of the band into a single dynamic access regime.

398. Some commenters suggested a review of the status and level of deployment of WSDs just prior to March 31, 2027, and the option to leave RRBS in place longer, if needed, to ensure continuity of service. ISED is of the view that this would create uncertainty, which in turn could incentivize current RRBS providers to delay the modernization of its technology, resulting in an increased risk of discontinuation of service.

Decision

399. Following the engagement on Improving Indigenous Access to Spectrum: Draft Indigenous Priority Window Spectrum Policy Framework, ISED will publish a Table of Key Dates to indicate the timing of the Indigenous priority window and subsequent access spectrum licensing window.

400. ISED will publish a Spectrum Advisory Bulletin to advise existing licensees and potential access spectrum licence applicants of the timing of the IPW and the initial general access spectrum licensing window. The SAB will further describe the duration of the windows and the deadline for applications.

401. At its discretion, ISED may open additional access spectrum licensing windows after the IPW and initial general access spectrum licensing window if there is further demand for licences in the band, and will announce these windows by publication of a SAB.

402. All spectrum-related documents referred to in this paper are available on ISED's Spectrum management and telecommunications website.

403. For further information concerning the process outlined in this document or related matters, contact:

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
Spectrum Licensing Policy Branch
Senior Director, Regulatory Policy
6th Floor, East Tower
235 Queen St
Ottawa ON  K1A 0H5

Telephone: 613-219-5436
TTY: 1-866-694-8389
Email: spectrumauctions-encheresduspectre@ised-isde.gc.ca

The following conditions will apply to access spectrum licences, subject to any additions or amendments that may be established in any band-specific frameworks.

It should be noted that licences are subject to the relevant provisions in the Radiocommunication Act and the Radiocommunication Regulations, as amended from time to time. For example, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry (the Minister) continues to have the power to amend the terms and conditions of spectrum licences, under paragraph 5(1)(b) of the Radiocommunication Act.

A1. Licence term

The term of this licence is three years. At the end of this term, the licensee will have a high expectation that a new licence will be issued for an equivalent licence term unless a breach of licence condition has occurred, a fundamental reallocation of spectrum to a new service is required, or an overriding policy need arises.

A2. Fees

Licences obtained through the access licensing process will be subject to the licence fees established for the applicable band.

A3. Licence transferability, divisibility and subordinate licensing

This licence is not transferable in whole or in part and cannot be divided or subordinated.

A4. Deployment requirements

Licences obtained through the access licensing process will be subject to the deployment requirements established for access spectrum licences for the applicable band.

A5. Radio station installations

The licensee must comply with Client Procedures Circular CPC-2-0-03, Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems, as amended from time to time.

A6. Provision of technical information

The licensee must provide, and maintain, up-to-date technical information related to associated radiocommunications installations that are in service within one month of the issuance of this licence. The licensee must provide or otherwise update and confirm the accuracy of their data relating to all in service installations on a monthly basis, regardless of whether any changes have occurred. If there are no radiocommunication installations in service associated to this spectrum licence, the licensee must indicate this as well.

The licensee must adhere with all other definitions, criteria, and timelines specified in CPC-2-1-30, Technical Information Associated with Radiocommunication Installations, as amended from time to time.

A7. Compliance with legislation, regulations and other obligations

The licensee is subject to, and must comply with, the Radiocommunication Act and the Radiocommunication Regulations, as amended from time to time. The licensee must use the assigned spectrum in accordance with the Canadian Table of Frequency Allocations and the spectrum policies applicable to this band, as amended from time to time. The licence is issued on condition that all representations made in relation to obtaining this licence are all true and complete in every respect.

A8. Technical considerations, and international and domestic coordination

The licensee must comply on an ongoing basis with the technical aspects of the appropriate Radio Standards Specifications (RSS) and Standard Radio System Plans (SRSP), as amended from time to time. Where applicable, the licensee must use its best efforts to enter into mutually acceptable agreements with other parties for facilitating the reasonable and timely development of their respective systems, and to coordinate with other licensed users in Canada and internationally.

The licensee must comply with the obligations arising from current and future frequency coordination agreements established between Canada and other countries and shall be required to provide information or take actions to implement these obligations as indicated in the applicable SRSP. Although frequency assignments are not subject to site licensing, the licensee may be required through the appropriate SRSP to furnish all necessary technical data for each relevant site.

A9. Lawful interception (if applicable)

The licensee operating as a telecommunication common carrier using the spectrum for voice telephony systems must, from the inception of service, provide for and maintain lawful interception capabilities as authorized by law. The requirements for lawful interception capabilities are provided in the Solicitor General's Enforcement Standards for Lawful Interception of Telecommunications (Rev. Nov. 95). These standards may be amended from time to time.

The licensee may request the Minister to forbear from enforcing certain assistance capability requirements for a limited period of time. The Minister, following consultation with Public Safety Canada, may exercise the power to forbear from enforcing a requirement or requirements where, in the opinion of the Minister, the requirement is not reasonably achievable. Requests for forbearance must include specific details and dates indicating when compliance with the requirement can be expected.

A10. Research and development

The licensee must invest, at a minimum, 2% of its adjusted gross revenues resulting from the use of this licence, averaged over the term of the licence, in eligible research and development (R&D) activities related to telecommunications. Eligible R&D activities are those that meet the definition of scientific research and experimental development adopted in the Income Tax Act, as amended from time to time. Adjusted gross revenues are defined as total service revenues less inter-carrier payments, bad debts, third party commissions, and provincial goods and services taxes collected. The licensee is exempt from R&D expenditure requirements if it, together with all affiliated licensees that are subject to the R&D condition of licence, has less than $1 billion in annual gross operating revenues from the provision of wireless services in Canada, averaged over the term of the licence. For this condition of licence, an affiliate is defined as a person who controls the carrier, or who is controlled by the carrier or by any person who controls the carrier, as per subsection 35(3) of the Telecommunications Act.

A11. Mandatory antenna tower and site sharing

The licensee must comply with the mandatory antenna tower and site sharing requirements set out in CPC-2-0-17, Conditions of Licence for Mandatory Roaming and Antenna Tower and Site Sharing and to Prohibit Exclusive Site Arrangements, as amended from time to time.

A12. Mandatory roaming

The licensee must comply with the roaming requirements set out in CPC-2-0-17, Conditions of Licence for Mandatory Roaming and Antenna Tower and Site Sharing and to Prohibit Exclusive Site Arrangements, as amended from time to time.

A13. Annual reporting

The licensee must submit an annual report for each year of the licence term, which includes the following information:

• a statement indicating continued compliance with all conditions of licence
• an update on the implementation and spectrum usage within the area covered by the licence
• existing audited financial statements with an accompanying auditor's report
• a report of the research and development expenditures for licensees operating as radiocommunication carriers (ISED reserves the right to request an audited statement of research and development expenditures with an accompanying auditor's report)
• a copy of any existing corporate annual report for the licensee's fiscal year with respect to the authorization

All reports and statements are to be certified by an officer of the company and submitted, in writing, within 120 days of the licensee's fiscal year-end. Confidential information provided will be treated in accordance with subsection 20(1) of the Access to Information Act.

Reports are to be submitted to ISED at the following address or by email:

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
Spectrum Management Operations Branch
Manager, Operational Policy
6th Floor, East Tower
235 Queen St
Ottawa ON K1A 0H5

Email: spectrumoperations-operationsduspectre@ised-isde.gc.ca

A14. Amendments

The Minister retains the discretion to amend these terms and conditions of licence at any time.

The following conditions will apply to all access spectrum licences in the Cellular band and the Personal Communications Services (PCS) blocks A to F band as defined in the Access Licensing Framework.

This licence is subject to the decisions established in SPB-001-24, Decision on New Access Licensing Framework, Changes to Subordinate Licensing and White Space to Support Rural and Remote Deployment (the Decision). Licences are subject to the relevant provisions in the Radiocommunication Act and the Radiocommunication Regulations, as amended from time to time. For example, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry (the Minister) continues to have the power to amend the terms and conditions of spectrum licences, under paragraph 5(1)(b) of the Radiocommunication Act.

B1. Licence term

The term of this licence is three years. At the end of this term, the licensee will have a high expectation that a new licence will be issued for an equivalent licence term unless a breach of licence condition has occurred, a fundamental reallocation of spectrum to a new service is required, or an overriding policy need arises.

B2. Fees

This licence is subject to annual fees, calculated in accordance with DGRB-005-03, Radio Authorization Fees for Wireless Telecommunication Systems that Operate in the Radio Frequency Bands 824.040 MHz to 848.970 MHz, 869.040 MHz to 893.970 MHz or 1850 MHz to 1990 MHz, and adjusted according to table 2 of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada’s (ISED) Spectrum and telecommunications fees. Annual fees must be paid in full for the next fiscal year on or before March 31 of every year.

B3. Licence transferability, divisibility and subordinate licensing

This licence is not transferable in whole or in part and cannot be divided or subordinated.

B4. Deployment requirements

The licensee will be required to demonstrate to the Minister, through site upload information, that the spectrum has been put to use at the levels set out in the Decision. A minimum of 1 station per 10,000 population (or portion of 10,000 population) in the Tier 5 service area must be deployed and in service by the end of the licence term. For the purpose of calculating the deployment requirement, a station will be considered any collection of radios, transmitters or receivers with identical GPS coordinates, regardless of elevation. Only stations that are actively being used for radiocommunication (as defined in the Radiocommunication Act) shall be considered valid deployments for the purposes of meeting this condition. ISED will use the population data for Tier 5 service areas published on the Service areas for competitive licensing web page.

The licensee is required to meet these conditions at all relevant times during the licence term and to continuously provide services throughout the term of the licence in accordance with these requirements.

The licensee must provide the Minister with any documentation or information related to deployment at the Minister’s request.

B5. Radio station installations

The licensee must comply with Client Procedures Circular CPC-2-0-03, Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems, as amended from time to time.

B6. Provision of technical information

The licensee must provide, and maintain, up-to-date technical information related to associated radiocommunications installations that are in service within one month of the issuance of this licence. The licensee must provide or otherwise update and confirm the accuracy of their data relating to all in service installations on a monthly basis, regardless of whether any changes have occurred. If there are no radiocommunication installations in service associated to this spectrum licence, the licensee must indicate this as well.

The licensee must adhere with all other definitions, criteria and timelines specified in CPC-2-1-30, Technical Information Associated with Radiocommunication Installations, as amended from time to time.

B7. Compliance with legislation, regulations and other obligations

The licensee is subject to, and must comply with, the Radiocommunication Act and the Radiocommunication Regulations, as amended from time to time. The licensee must use the assigned spectrum in accordance with the Canadian Table of Frequency Allocations and the spectrum policies applicable to this band, as amended from time to time. The licence is issued on condition that all representations made in relation to obtaining this licence are all true and complete in every respect.

B8. Technical considerations, and international and domestic coordination

The licensee must comply on an ongoing basis with the technical aspects of the appropriate Radio Standards Specifications (RSS) and Standard Radio System Plans (SRSP), as amended from time to time. Where applicable, the licensee must use its best efforts to enter into mutually acceptable agreements with other parties for facilitating the reasonable and timely development of their respective systems, and to coordinate with other licensed users in Canada and internationally.

The licensee must protect stations deployed by radio licensees operating standard systems. In addition, notwithstanding the provisions in the existing CPC-2-1-09, Displacement of Fixed Service Stations Operating in the 2 GHz Frequency Range to Accommodate Licensed Personal Communications Services (PCS), that allow displacement, the licensee may not trigger displacement of existing radio licences in PCS blocks A to F.

The licensee must comply with the obligations arising from current and future frequency coordination agreements established between Canada and other countries and shall be required to provide information or take actions to implement these obligations as indicated in the applicable SRSP. Although frequency assignments are not subject to site licensing, the licensee may be required through the appropriate SRSP to furnish all necessary technical data for each relevant site.

B9. Lawful interception (if applicable)

The licensee operating as a telecommunication common carrier using the spectrum for voice telephony systems must, from the inception of service, provide for and maintain lawful interception capabilities as authorized by law. The requirements for lawful interception capabilities are provided in the Solicitor General's Enforcement Standards for Lawful Interception of Telecommunications (Rev. Nov. 95). These standards may be amended from time to time.

The licensee may request the Minister to forbear from enforcing certain assistance capability requirements for a limited period of time. The Minister, following consultation with Public Safety Canada, may exercise the power to forbear from enforcing a requirement or requirements where, in the opinion of the Minister, the requirement is not reasonably achievable. Requests for forbearance must include specific details and dates indicating when compliance with the requirement can be expected.

B10. Research and development

The licensee must invest, at a minimum, 2% of its adjusted gross revenues resulting from the use of this licence, averaged over the term of the licence, in eligible research and development (R&D) activities related to telecommunications. Eligible R&D activities are those that meet the definition of scientific research and experimental development adopted in the Income Tax Act, as amended from time to time. Adjusted gross revenues are defined as total service revenues less inter-carrier payments, bad debts, third party commissions, and provincial goods and services taxes collected. The licensee is exempt from R&D expenditure requirements if it, together with all affiliated licensees that are subject to the R&D condition of licence, has less than $1 billion in annual gross operating revenues from the provision of wireless services in Canada, averaged over the term of the licence. For this condition of licence, an affiliate is defined as a person who controls the carrier, or who is controlled by the carrier or by any person who controls the carrier, as per subsection 35(3) of the Telecommunications Act.

B11. Mandatory antenna tower and site sharing

The licensee must comply with the mandatory antenna tower and site sharing requirements set out in CPC-2-0-17, Conditions of Licence for Mandatory Roaming and Antenna Tower and Site Sharing and to Prohibit Exclusive Site Arrangements, as amended from time to time.

B12. Mandatory roaming

The licensee must comply with the roaming requirements set out in CPC-2-0-17, Conditions of Licence for Mandatory Roaming and Antenna Tower and Site Sharing and to Prohibit Exclusive Site Arrangements, as amended from time to time.

B13. Annual reporting

The licensee must submit an annual report for each year of the licence term, which includes the following information:

• a statement indicating continued compliance with all conditions of licence
• an update on the implementation and spectrum usage within the area covered by the licence
• existing audited financial statements with an accompanying auditor's report
• a report of the research and development expenditures for licensees operating as radiocommunication carriers (ISED reserves the right to request an audited statement of research and development expenditures with an accompanying auditor's report)
• a copy of any existing corporate annual report for the licensee's fiscal year with respect to the authorization

All reports and statements are to be certified by an officer of the company and submitted, in writing, within 120 days of the licensee's fiscal year-end. Confidential information provided will be treated in accordance with subsection 20(1) of the Access to Information Act.

Reports are to be submitted to ISED at the following address or by email:

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
Spectrum Management Operations Branch
Manager, Operational Policy
6th Floor, East Tower
235 Queen St
Ottawa ON K1A 0H5

Email: spectrumoperations-operationsduspectre@ised-isde.gc.ca

B14. Amendments

The Minister retains the discretion to amend these terms and conditions of licence at any time.