Decision on the Policy, Technical and Licensing Framework for the Use of the Frequency Bands 21.2 – 21.8 GHz and 22.4 – 23.0 GHz by Fixed Services

4. 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. This includes developing national policies for spectrum utilization and ensuring effective management of the radio frequency spectrum resource. Additionally, under the Radiocommunication Act, the Minister has authority to establish and amend conditions of licence.

5. Wireless services are an important part of Canadians' lives, whether they are used to access multi-media applications, conduct business while on the move, connect with family and friends, or manage finances. These services are integrated in society, and now more than ever, Canadians expect them to be high quality, available in every region of the country, and competitively priced. Additionally, a robust wireless telecommunications industry drives the adoption and use of digital technologies, facilitates innovation, and enhances the productivity of the Canadian economy.

6. Terrestrial backhaul facilities, which support fixed and mobile broadband networks and some satellite services, are an essential part of the wireless telecommunications infrastructure. They enable the delivery of Internet, data and voice traffic. Additional backhaul facilities will be needed to support the increasing capacity requirements and denser deployment scenarios as the current fifth generation (5G) commercial mobile services and applications evolve towards the upcoming sixth generation (6G) technologies. Moreover, additional backhaul facilities are needed to connect remote sites and buildings used for corporate, health and educational purposes as these services increase their reliance on digital technologies. Furthermore, broadcasters rely on backhaul infrastructure to transmit news footage from remote locations to broadcast stations.

7. In developing this Decision, ISED was guided by the Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada (SPFC), which states that the spectrum program’s objective is to maximize the economic and social benefits that Canadians derive from the use of the radio frequency spectrum resource.

8. Whitin this context, ISED's policy objectives for this Decision are to:

• enhance innovation by enabling Canadian companies to develop innovative use cases that put Canada at the leading edge of the digital economy;
• foster investment and the evolution of wireless networks by enabling the development of high-quality networks and technology;
• support sustained competition in the provision of wireless services so that all consumers and businesses benefit from greater choice and competitive prices, and;
• facilitate the deployment and timely availability of services across the country, including in rural, remote, and Northern regions.

9. Terrestrial backhaul facilities are an essential part of the communications infrastructure and help support the delivery of fixed and mobile broadband networks, of some satellite networks, as well as other Internet, data and voice traffic. Backhaul can connect remote sites and buildings for corporate, health and educational purposes, and broadcasters rely on backhaul to transmit news footage.

10. There are multiple ways of providing backhaul, including fibre optics, wireless microwave and satellites. In Canada, service providers tend to favour a mix of fibre and wireless microwave for backhaul. The composition of a particular backhaul mix depends on a variety of factors, including technical performance, environmental performance, ease of deployment, capacity, cost, accessibility and competition.

11. The capacity demands for backhaul facilities is driven by the size and capacity requirements of the networks they support. For example, the capacity demands of mobile networks continue to grow significantly with the transition from 4G to 5G networks, and data traffic is expected to nearly triple by 2030, with a projected compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 16 percent, according to the latest Ericsson Mobility Report from 2024. As a result, enhanced backhaul capacity will be required so that the increased data traffic in a mobile network between the base station and a user can be effectively carried through the rest of the broader network. Other types of networks, such as fixed wireless access and private networks, are also experiencing growth in capacity requirements which will also result in a need for proportional backhaul support.

12. Based on these trends, a greater number of backhaul connections will be required, as well as higher speed demands for both new and existing backhaul links. While these backhaul connections are primarily achieved using fibre optics, a significant proportion will continue to rely on wireless point-to-point links. This will result in continued growth in demand on the limited supply of wireless backhaul spectrum.

13. Although ISED has made additional spectrum available for backhaul applications in recent years, 12.70-13.25 GHz released in 2020 and 31.8-33.4 GHz released in 2021, more spectrum will be needed to support the anticipated increase in wireless network traffic.

14. The need for additional backhaul spectrum was reflected in the Spectrum Outlook 2023 to 2027 (the Outlook), which describes ISED’s plans and priorities for managing the radio frequency spectrum. Taking into account stakeholder comments, the frequency bands 21.2-21.8 GHz and 22.4-23.0 GHz were identified as Priority 2, to be studied for possible release of additional backhaul spectrum. Since the adjacent frequency bands 21.8-22.4 GHz and 23.0-23.6 GHz are already identified for point-to-point radio systems described in SP 23/38 GHz — Spectrum Policy and Licensing Considerations, Fixed Radio Systems in the 23 GHz and 38 GHz Frequency Bands, the additional bands could make the entire 23 GHz band (21.2-23.6 GHz) available for this type of backhaul use. Through the Outlook, ISED indicated its plan to conduct internal studies to consider regulatory options and the impact of introducing backhaul applications along with other services in these bands, and noted that it would initiate a consultation, if warranted.

15. In July 2025, ISED launched a consultation to identify additional backhaul spectrum in the 21.2–21.8 GHz and 22.4–23.0 GHz frequency bands. The consultation sought input on the following issues:

• the equipment ecosystem
• the types of fixed service systems to be permitted in the band
• coexistence between backhaul systems and other radio services
• the licensing mechanism

16. Through this Decision, ISED is establishing a framework that provides additional spectrum for backhaul applications. This framework will enable Canadians to benefit from enhanced telecommunication services, which rely on backhaul applications for their backbone.

17. In the Consultation, ISED sought comments on the availability of an existing fixed backhaul equipment ecosystem in the 21.2-21.8 GHz and 22.4-23.0 GHz frequency bands that would be appropriate for the Canadian market.

Summary of comments

18. Bell, Intracom Telecom, Québecor, the RABC, Rogers and TELUS confirmed that there is a well-established, internationally adopted ecosystem of fixed point-to-point microwave backhaul equipment that already supports the 21.2-21.8 GHz and 22.4-23.0 GHz frequency bands. Stakeholders supported expanding the 23 GHz band to include these additional frequency ranges, emphasizing that it will reduce deployment costs, improve supply chain flexibility, and enhance spectrum efficiency.

19. Bell, Intracom Telecom, the RABC, Rogers and TELUS also recommended that ISED reviews its technical requirement to permit larger channel sizes. Intracom Telecom, the RABC, Rogers, and TELUS suggested permitting channel sizes ranging from 60 MHz to 120 MHz to enable higher throughput and better spectral efficiency. Bell emphasized that this would also support the use of advanced equipment for greater capacity.

Discussion

20. Based on the comments received, ISED notes that there is a widely deployed fixed backhaul equipment ecosystem in the 21.2-21.8 GHz and 22.4-23.0 GHz frequency bands that is suitable for the Canadian market. Furthermore, ISED recognizes the strong interest and demand for expanded backhaul spectrum, and continues to believe that Canadians will benefit from increased access to additional backhaul spectrum in the future.

21. ISED notes the comments from Bell, Intracom Telecom, the RABC, Rogers and TELUS about their desire for ISED to revise the channel plan to accommodate larger channel sizes. Following this Decision, ISED will take into consideration these comments in the development of the applicable technical standard, in consultation with stakeholders, including the RABC.

6.1 Change to the 23 GHz band plan

22. In the Consultation, ISED sought comments on its proposal to rescind the multipoint communication systems (MCS) designation from the frequency bands 21.2-21.6 GHz and 22.4-22.8 GHz, noting that although some parts of the 23 GHz band are currently designated for MCS, there has been consistently low industry interest and limited deployment of this service over the years.

23. Considering the increasing need for additional backhaul spectrum, ISED also sought comments on its proposal to designate the frequency bands 21.2-21.8 GHz and 22.4-23.0 GHz for fixed point-to-point systems. This proposed designation would make the entire 21.2-23.6 GHz range available for backhaul applications. The proposed changes to the band plan are shown in figure 1.

Summary of comments

24. Bell, Intracom Telecom, Québecor, the RABC, Rogers and TELUS indicated their support of the Department’s proposal to rescind the MCS designation from the 21.2-21.6 GHz and 22.4-22.8 GHz frequency bands, in order to make the spectrum available for fixed point-to-point systems.

25. Bell, Cogeco, Intracom Telecom, the RABC, Rogers and TELUS expressed their support for ISED’s proposal to designate 21.2-21.8 GHz and 22.4-23.0 GHz for fixed point-to-point systems. These respondents all agreed that the additional backhaul spectrum is essential for meeting the increasing demands of broadband access networks but also for supporting continued expansion and innovation as emerging 6G technologies are deployed.

26. The RABC and Rogers recommended that ISED recognize the role of advanced technologies such as Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO) and beamforming. Rogers also indicated that Massive MIMO should also be considered, arguing that these technologies enhance spectral efficiency and network performance, especially beamforming since it enables multiple directional backhaul links to a single hub. As part of the RABC submission, the Canadian Electronics and Communications Association (CECA) disagreed with the RABC’s proposal, arguing that beamforming is not applicable to fixed services.

Discussion

27. As noted in the Consultation, although the 23 GHz band is currently designated for MCS in certain segments, there has been a lack of industry interest in deploying this service. All responses to this question indicated general support of ISED’s proposal. Therefore, ISED continues to be of the view that the MCS designation should be rescinded from the 21.2-21.6 GHz and 22.4-22.8 GHz frequency bands. This will permit the spectrum to be repurposed to effectively meet the evolving needs and increasing demand for backhaul spectrum.

28. The strong industry consensus around designating the frequency bands 21.2–21.8 GHz and 22.4–23.0 GHz for fixed point-to-point systems demonstrates the essential need for additional backhaul capacity to meet increasing spectrum requirements. Therefore, ISED maintains its view that this designation would provide well-needed contiguous backhaul spectrum to support the growing demands from broadband access networks such as 5G and future 6G technology, private networks, and fixed wireless Internet services.

29. ISED acknowledges the insights from the RABC and Rogers regarding the importance of the role of advanced technologies such as MIMO and beamforming. ISED also recognizes CECA’s differing viewpoint on this point as part of the RABC’s proposal. Following this decision, ISED will take into consideration these comments in the development of the applicable technical standard, in consultation with the RABC and other stakeholders.

Decision

6.2 Coexistence of fixed point-to-point systems with other co-primary services

30. In the Canadian Table of Frequency Allocation (CTFA), as shown in table 1 below, the 21.2-23.6 GHz frequency band is allocated to the fixed service on a primary basis. Some portions are also allocated to other services, namely with co-primary allocations to the earth exploration-satellite service (EESS), the space research service (SRS), the radio astronomy service (RAS) and the inter-satellite service (ISS). Furthermore, the entire band includes a secondary allocation to the mobile service (MS), with some portions excluding aeronautical mobile use.

31. In the Consultation, ISED mentioned that in the frequency band 22.21-22.5 GHz, footnote 5.532 specifies that EESS (passive) and SRS (passive) shall not impose constraints on the fixed and mobile services. However, there is no footnote that applies to EESS (passive) and SRS (passive) in the frequency band 21.2-21.4 GHz to ensure coexistence, despite co-primary allocations with the fixed service. Considering that EESS and SRS systems currently coexist with fixed service systems in the 22.21-22.5 GHz portion of the 23 GHz band where footnote 5.532 applies, and that the band plan for fixed point-to-point systems could result in systems which operate in both the 21.2-21.4 GHz and 22.21-22.5 GHz band, ISED proposed that a similar footnote could facilitate coexistence. Therefore in the Consultation, ISED sought comments on its proposal to modify the CTFA through the following footnote:

32. The corresponding changes to the CTFA were proposed as follows in the Consultation:

Summary of comments

33. Bell, Intracom Telecom and Québecor expressed their support for the introduction of footnote Cxx in the CTFA.

34. The RABC and Rogers were generally supportive of the proposed footnote Cxx. However, both recommended that mobile services be explicitly included in the footnote by proposing the following wording:

35. The RABC and Rogers drew attention to footnote 5.532 in the CTFA, which specifies that EESS (passive) and SRS (passive) shall not impose constraints on the fixed and mobile services in the 22.21-22.5 GHz frequency band. The RABC and Rogers argued that applying similar coexistence requirements to the 21.2-21.4 GHz portion of the band would facilitate seamless operation and technical alignment across the extended 23 GHz band. They further noted that this approach would better align with U.S. coexistence restrictions for these frequencies and benefit Canadian operators by supporting equipment compatibility, reducing deployment barriers and enabling cross-border operations.

36. TELUS noted that there is no corresponding ITU footnote addressing coexistence in the 21.2–21.4 GHz frequency band. TELUS also highlighted that the United States has adopted footnote US532 to address the coexistence in this band by setting a higher priority for fixed and mobile services. In the United States, the mobile service is also allocated on a co-primary basis. Furthermore, the ITU Radio Regulation also provides a co-primary allocation for mobile services in this frequency range. Additionally, TELUS pointed out that in Canada, the mobile service is only allocated on a secondary basis in the 23 GHz band. To promote regulatory consistency, TELUS recommended aligning the CTFA with the ITU allocation by updating the mobile service allocation to primary status between 21.2 GHz and 23.6 GHz. TELUS further suggested that ISED adopt the same text as the ITU footnote 5.532 for the 22.21-22.5 GHz frequency band and apply the same coexistence provisions to the 21.2-21.4 GHz frequency band, as follows:

37. In its reply comments, Bell argued that designating mobile as a primary co-allocation would be premature and outside the intended scope of the current backhaul-focused consultation. Bell further stated that the question of primary service designations should be addressed holistically in a future consultation to revise the CTFA, where ISED can consider primary service allocations across millimeter wave bands in a coordinated manner.

38. The CSA encouraged ISED to preserve the SRS uplink allocation in the 22.55–23.15 GHz frequency band, and noted that the space science community is hoping for a future EESS uplink allocation in the same band to support future satellite missions. Although the CSA does not currently have any space missions using this band, the interest in lunar and beyond space missions is increasing and preserving the allocation is crucial for anticipated future use.

Discussion

39. ISED notes that in Canada, the mobile service has a secondary status allocation throughout the 23 GHz band in the CTFA, whereas it holds co-primary allocation in both the ITU Radio Regulations and the US table of frequency allocations for the 23 GHz band. Additionally, there is also no ITU footnote for the 21.2-21.4 GHz band to address sharing between the EESS (passive) and SRS (passive) and the fixed service.

40. With regards to the recommendation made by the RABC, Rogers and TELUS, ISED is of the view that including the mobile service in the proposed footnote Cxx could introduce a prioritization inconsistency, given the primary status of the EESS and SRS allocations. ISED notes that upgrading the allocation status of the mobile service to primary could address this inconsistency, as proposed by TELUS. However, incorporating either of these changes would have no significant impact on usage at this time, as there is currently no established framework to enable mobile use in this band within Canada. Furthermore, ISED is not aware of any current or emerging interest for mobile use in the 23 GHz band.

41. If an interest and ecosystem for mobile use in the 23 GHz band were to emerge in the future, ISED would need to develop a framework for this use through a consultation, at which point the issue of the mobile service allocation and priority in footnote Cxx could also be addressed. Therefore, ISED continues to be of the view that introducing footnote Cxx as proposed in the Consultation is the most appropriate and efficient path forward at this time.

42. ISED acknowledges CSA’s comments regarding the preservation of the SRS uplink allocation in the 22.55–23.15 GHz frequency band. Based on ISED’s studies, the results of this Decision will not impact the SRS uplink allocation, and no sharing issues between the fixed service and the SRS uplink are anticipated. ISED will also take these comments into consideration in the development of the technical standards for fixed point-to-point systems in the 23 GHz band, in consultation with the RABC and other stakeholders.

Decision

43. In the Consultation, ISED sought comments on its proposal to license, on a first-come, first-served basis, fixed point-to-point radio systems in the frequency bands 21.2-21.8 GHz and 22.4-23.0 GHz, using the existing radio licence process described in the RSP-113 - Application Procedures for Planned Radio Stations Above 960 MHz in the Fixed Service and applying the fee model described in RIC-42 - Guide for Calculating Radio Licence Fees.

44. This licensing process would be consistent with the current licensing mechanism applied to fixed point-to-point radio systems in the frequency bands 21.8-22.4 GHz and 23.0-23.6 GHz, making use of the same equipment ecosystem.

Summary of comments

45. Comments and/or reply comments were received from Bell, Cogeco Communications, Intracom Telecom, Québecor, Rogers and TELUS. Most respondents were in support of ISED’s proposal.

46. Rogers, however, proposed the Department adopt a hybrid licensing framework that incorporates both link-based and area-based licensing models to support a broader range of deployment scenarios in the 23 GHz band. They recognized that existing link-based licensing is appropriate for point-to-point applications but suggested that future 6G demands will require multiple backhaul links to a central hub and that area-based licensing can enable this type of dynamic architecture.

47. In their reply comments, Bell and Cogeco were not in support of Rogers’ proposal. Bell indicated that area-based licensing is more suitable for mobile applications and that a hybrid model would introduce unnecessary coordination ambiguity, reaffirming that a FCFS link-based mechanism has consistently delivered efficient outcomes in comparable bands.

48. Cogeco requested that ISED not adopt the dual licensing regime proposed by Rogers at this time. Considering the lack of operational and technical detail, they suggest that a targeted consultation with the industry would be required to allow proper assessment of a hybrid licensing approach.

Discussion

49. ISED notes that the majority of respondents supported ISED’s proposal of applying the current link-based licensing mechanism for fixed point-to-point radio systems on a FCFS basis.

50. Stakeholders' responses highlighted the proven efficiency of this approach for fixed point-to-point use while ensuring a consistent process for the extended 23 GHz band.

51. ISED acknowledges Rogers’ comments in regard to a hybrid licensing framework that incorporates both link-based and area-based models. Rogers’ proposal is based on the potential of a future dynamic architecture in the 23 GHz band, consisting of multiple links to a central hub network, as well as more traditional fixed point-to-point systems. ISED also notes that several reply comments respondents did not support this proposal.

52. ISED is of the view that adopting a link-based licensing mechanism on a FCFS basis would be the best approach at this time. The department is not aware of a flexible use ecosystem supporting both fixed and mobile use for this band. It is not clear that the adoption of an area licensing or hybrid licensing framework would be more advantageous at this time. Furthermore, the detailed parameters for a dual licensing framework would need to be elaborated and consulted on. ISED will continue to monitor developments as technologies evolve in this spectrum range.

Decision

53. As a result of the decisions made in this document, ISED will update the CTFA accordingly. Furthermore, in consultation with the RABC and other stakeholders, ISED will update the current technical standard addressing rules for the 23 GHz band, SRSP-321.8 — Technical Requirements for the Fixed Line-of-Sight Radio Systems Operating in the Bands 21.8-22.4 GHz and 23.0-23.6 GHz, in accordance with this Decision.

54. All ISED publications related to spectrum management and telecommunications are available on the Spectrum Management and Telecommunications website.

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

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
Engineering, Planning and Standards Branch
Senior Director, Terrestrial Engineering and Standards
6th Floor, East Tower
235 Queen St
Ottawa ON K1A 0H5

Telephone: 613-797-2253
TTY: 1-866-694-8389
Email: consultationradiostandards-consultationnormesradio@ised-isde.gc.ca