Intervenors take issue with ISED’s proposed Tier 5 service areas in rural spectrum consultation

Tier 5 service areas are “too large” to meet demand for Access Licensing, Canada’s telecoms companies and stakeholders told Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED) in replies to its consultation on the use of white space spectrum to service rural and remote communities. White space spectrum is that spectrum which is not deployed by the licensee. ISED published the responses to its consultation in November, and the replies last Thursday. According to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ (FCM) reply, only five of 53 respondents in November opposed ISED’s proposal to introduce a new Access Spectrum Licencing regime that would put unused spectrum to use in rural and remote areas. Several supporters of the new access regime are primary licence holders, such as Telus Corp., Cogeco Inc., Bragg Communications Inc.’s Eastlink, Iristel Inc., Xplornet Communications Inc., which the FCM –which represents more than 2,000 municipalities of various sizes – noted was “an important point.” “The submissions of these licence holders indicate a willingness to place the needs of rural communities ahead of the fear of losing unused spectrum resources to other entities… On the whole, the record shows a strong consensus – across the range of stakeholders – to take corrective measures to deliver connectivity for rural and remote Canadians,” FCM wrote in its reply. BCE Inc. and Rogers Communications Inc. opposed the proposed Access Licensing Framework in their comments and replies, with the former calling it “inappropriate because ISED has already provided sufficient access to spectrum resources.” Other stakeholders, such as SSI Micro Ltd. took issue with the proposed Tier 5 service areas, calling it “a tool that is not fit for either of the purposes to which ISED would use them.” “Not only are they too large and diverse to meet the demand in many cases; according to the proposal, these mixed service areas will also not be made available to meet demand for Access Licensing so long as the existing licensee offers service in an urban area,” SSI Micro wrote in the reply. Wireless service provider Ecotel Inc. suggested that ISED make use of grid cells to define allocated spectrum areas in order to maximize coverage while also reducing any potential interference. ISED defines its grid cells as “one minute latitude by one minute longitude blocks, of which there are almost 8 million covering the country.” Tier service areas are based on amalgamations of ISED grid cells. The company argued that Tier 5 areas “lead to the creation of orphan communities” for towns located outside the population centers of Tier 5 areas considered as “served.” “An efficient allocation of the unused spectrum should not be driven nor limited by a pre-established license area boundary, but it should instead provide the most possible flexibility to address the problem,” Ecotel wrote in its submission. The Government of the Northwest Territories, in its reply, also argued that Tier 5 areas may be too large, claiming the eight Tier 5 areas in its territory “remain vast” and “further subdivision” may be necessary. However, it also raised concern that grid cells might encourage licensees to “‘cherry pick’ tightly defined grid-cell configurations in favour of configurations that run with existing social, economic and political and governance responsibilities” and urged ISED to study the risks of both options carefully. SSI Micro, in its reply, suggested that ISED should instead focus on “an improved subordination process” which it argued would better aid the secondary market to match available supply to specific demand “rather than introducing a new, top-down regulatory mechanism such as Access Licensing that must accord with the framework of service area tiers.” The Independent Telecommunications Providers Association (ITPA), a non-profit that represents 21 independent local exchange carriers in Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec, said it agreed with ISED’s proposed use of Tier 5 service areas for the new licencing regime. However, ITPA noted in its reply that “given the relatively small size of Tier 5 areas, it is possible that a spectrum holder providing service in a given Tier 5 area meet its deployment conditions without any towers being built within the boundaries of the Tier 5 area, especially for low band spectrum.” Telus, Bell, and Rogers all echoed ITPA’s position in their November submissions. Telus – which during the November Canadian Telecom Summit repeatedly criticized government spectrum policy – and Cogeco both argued that ISED should adopt the “use it or lose it” approach to spectrum in their replies. The two companies agreed that ISED’s proposed policy should be applied to all bands in a renewal term, not only to the cellular and personal communications services (PCS) bands (primarily used to provide commercial mobile wireless services). “ A variation of the policy (‘use it or share it’) should apply to bands that are still in the initial licensing term but are past their initial deployment requirement milestone; and the policy should not be applied only to rural and remote parts of the country, but to all service areas (metropolitan, urban, rural and remote) where spectrum remains unused,” Telus reiterated in its reply. The James Bay Cree Communications Society (JBCCS), a Cree owned and operated non-profit radio broadcasting network, was one of the few stakeholders to specifically outline solutions for Indigenous communities in its reply. “It is important that telecommunications policy does not leave another generation of Indigenous youth behind and without the resources and tools they need to succeed,” the society wrote in its reply. In its reply, the JBCCS reiterated its initial proposal to implement an Indigenous Priority Access Window which in principle would grant Indigenous entities first right of refusal for spectrum licenses in their territories. “Access to spectrum is an important component of Indigenous self-determination and sovereignty in the 21st century,” JBCCS wrote, noting that Advanced Interactive Canada Inc., Eeyou Communications Network, First Mile Connectivity Consortium, the Internet Society and Mozilla, and SPRIG Learning all supported the Indigenous priority proposal. “ISED policy can make this a reality, and this in turn will be an important part of addressing the disparities in access to the internet experienced by Indigenous communities across the country.” – Reporting by Jenna Cocullo at jcocullo@thewirereport.ca and editing by Michael Lee-Murphy at mleemurphy@thewirereport.ca.

Intervenors take issue with ISED’s proposed Tier 5 service areas in rural spectrum consultation

News | January 11, 2022

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Intervenors take issue with ISED’s proposed Tier 5 service areas in rural spectrum consultation

News | January 11, 2022

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Terrestar takes CRTC spectrum revenue decision to Federal Court of Appeal

ISED hears further efforts needed in consultation on Indigenous Priority Window for spectrum

Funding gaps, policy shortfalls keeping rural Canada offline, experts say

Telesat announces funding deals with governments of Canada, Quebec

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us