3.1. BWA framework

a) Define and describe the technologies covered by BWA, indicating positive aspects and possible fragilities.

The majority of respondents to the Public Consultation considered that BWA applications fulfilled an important and positive role in the development of alternative infra-structures - contributing to a reduction in barriers, with special relevance to access networks - in the offer and provision of bit stream data services, in the offer of multimedia services and in broadband internet access.

Reference was made to several different systems and platforms, based on different technologies, whose application is dependent on use (fixed, nomadic or mobile), performance and intended coverage requirements.

However, in defining the type of technologies encompassed by BWA, there were notable differences in the responses. Of the thirteen parties that responded directly to the question:

a) Some associate all technologies currently capable of supplying broadband services with BWA, apart from those derived from IEEE standards. Neuvex, in particular, defines BWA as any technology that provides bit stream wireless access (greater than 1.5 Mbps) over a wide geographical area and which operates with a bandwidth of over 1 MHz;

b) On the other hand, two parties did not specify particular technologies and/or standards. One of these, Vodafone, even considers that it does not make sense at this stage to advance with particular characteristics of each technology, especially because these are dependent on the equipment supplier. Vodafone considers that it would be premature to advance with the characteristics of a specific product of a given equipment supplier, since in the future the corresponding solution may be unavailable or more interesting solutions may have been developed in the meantime. The company therefore considers that the principle of technological neutrality should prevail and that it should be down to each operator to make a choice according to the technology (or range of technology) that it considers most suitable.

c) The remaining six parties (of which four are connected to equipment manufacturers) identified the standards developed within the IEEE (standards IEEE 802.16-d and IEEE 802.16-e; IEEE 802.20) and ETSI (HIPERMAN-HIgh PErformance Radio Metropolitan Area Network) as being BWA technologies.

An analysis of the information presented on the definition of BWA type technologies, reveals differences with respect to the comparison and/or identification of positive aspects and possible fragilities.

Below is a summary of the aspects emphasised by the various parties:

3.1.1. BWA applications in general

Positive aspects:

• They are a central component in the pursuit and realisation of the objectives of the Information Society expressed in the Lisbon Agenda and in the i201 Initiative.
   
• They fulfil an important and positive role in the development of alternative infra-structures - contributing to a reduction in barriers, with special relevance to access networks - in the offer and provision of bit stream data services, in the offer of multimedia services and in broadband internet access.

Fragilities:

• The need for tight control of the technical and operational characteristics of the systems which may operate on a basis of radio licensing exemption;
   
• The fact that the exploitation conditions are not yet defined and stabilised. Another fragility of BWA technologies is the complexity of interoperability testing. The mandate conferred on CEPT by the European Commission is testament to this fragility.

3.1.2. At a technological level

The BWA technologies identified by the parties were as follows:

• Those used in the frequency bands 3.6 GHz, 5.8 GHz (BFWA); 24.5 GHz and 27.5 GHz;
• Within the scope of 3G: GSM (EDGE); WCDMA; HSDPA; HSUPA; CDMA2000 and 1xEVDO;
• Wi-Fi (802.11x), including meshed Wi-Fi; IEEE 802.16d (IEEE 802.16-2004); IEEE 802.16e (or IEEE 802.16-2005); IEEE 802.20 (Mobile Wi-Fi); WiBro;
• ETSI HIPERMAN (HIgh PErformance Radio Metropolitan Area Network);
• Flash-OFDM, iBurst, T-MAX, UMTS-TDD; RipWare; IPWireless;
• Point-to-point systems in the frequency bands of 60/70/80/90 GHz and FSO;
• UWB systems (modulation by dispersion);
• In the future, SDR (Software Defined Radio);

For some of the above technologies and frequency bands, the parties pointed out positive aspects and fragilities, including:

3.6 GHz Frequency Band

Positive aspects: 

• Greater degree of practical use
• More mature associated technologies
• Far more favourable propagation characteristics
• In conjunction with the availability of more powerful transmitters, it allows the implementation of networks with a greater coverage radius (a few dozen kilometres), which makes these bands especially suitable for rural areas with low density and/or for services with NLoS (Non Line of Sight) and mobility 

Fragilities:

• Need to use spectrum that is fragmented
• Greater sensitivity to interference phenomena between sectors and multi-path effects, requiring greater care in planning, in virtue of capacity, consistent with the penetration and geographical reach of each station.

24.5 GHz or 27.5 GHz Frequency Bands

Positive aspects: 

• Greater bandwidth available

Fragilities:

• Less standardisation
• Propagation more influenced by atmospheric conditions (rain)
• Little or no tolerance of obstacles, requiring LOS (Line Of Sight)

5 GHz Frequency Bands

Fragilities:

• Susceptible to inevitable interference, incompatible with a top quality service

Positive aspects and fragilities of WiMAX

Positive aspects WiMAX identified

• Continuous integration between fixed and nomadic service customers over existing mobile and fixed network architecture
• Greater bit rates and traffic flow per user and per cell, good spectrum efficiency and low latency
• CAPEX optimisation, allowing achievement of desired financial levels
• Functionalities that deal with undesirable phenomena connected to propagation
• Meets rapid internet access needs in large geographic area, for mobile and fixed services, at a low cost and with flexibility.
• Possibility of meeting the requirements of wireless access platforms, especially the need of band management in function of the type of services required by terminals and applications (QoS), as well as the need for greater radio bandwidths per terminal and per base station
• Possibility of combining current wire and wireless networks, providing large bandwidths at great distances, with coverage ranging from metres to kilometres; possibility of providing a large number of services such as wireless DSL, VoIP, video, multimedia applications, etc.;
• Association of IP transport advantages for all the services with QoS management, the possibility of introducing Multicast services, a more efficient use of the spectrum, both through codification rates and through scalable segmentation of available band, making it an extremely promising technology for responding to the needs of present and future implementation of fixed, nomadic and mobile access BWA, promising interoperability with other current and future networks and compatibility with existing terminals (with Ethernet e Wi-Fi interfaces)
• IEEE 802.16-d technology, specifically, allows achievement of desirable bit rates in data services, and at the same time allows reconciliation of voice service in a dual play perspective
• Presents other advantages, of which the most important is the fact that it sits in a native all-IP architecture, providing the advantages of IP technology as far as costs, scalability and flexibility are concerned
• Simple network architecture
• IEEE 802.16-d, in particular, allows reduced coverage in environments without line of sight, with a view to access technology use, and high latency/jitter levels with a view to the use of technology with transmission networks for 2nd and 3rd generation networks (in its current version)

Fragilities WiMAX identified

• Development of IEEE 802.16e standard is only recent, concluded only at the end of 2005 and the industry has not yet developed products with sufficient maturity
• Harmonisation of 3.5 GHz frequency bands not yet completed at CEPT level,
• With regards to spectrum harmonisation for access to BWA services in the European Union, the CEPT report is expected in March 2007, with a decision of the Commission expected in November 2007, after WRC-07
• Lack of practical experience, given that it is a recent technology; it is hoped that certified equipment will appear in 2007

b) Define the radio parameters of the technologies mentioned above, including:

i. Power;

ii. Channels;

iii. Duplex mode (TDD/FDD);

iv. Modulation;

v. Standard applicable (if existing);

vi. Coexistence of various technologies and variations of the same technology;

The majority of the parties that responded to this question made reference to some characteristics of the technology which were presented in the previous question, making a comparison between them.

It should be noted that three parties (Ericsson, Grupo PT and Radiomóvel) considered that the radio parameters should respect the provision set forth in the Decisions and Recommendations of ITU-R and the CEPT. One of them, Radiomóvel, also emphasised the new methods established by the CEPT for the definition of channels (where guard bandwidths are not envisaged, as long as determined criteria are complied with), which, it considers, will provide operators with greater flexibility in the choice of channel bandwidth and at the same time make the introduction of technologies with different bandwidths easier and more flexible.

Sonaecom stated that currently certified equipment, based on the IEEE 802.16 standard, only covered the 3.4-3.6 GHz frequency band. It also emphasised that in the meantime there was indication from the manufactures of availability for the 3.6-3.8 GHz frequency bands but according to the needs of the market.

c) What type of use is best suited to BWA technologies: connection to end user, transmission network or both?

Some of the parties did not respond to this question and others either did not reply directly or were unclear, referring to the response on the applications. The majority of parties that did respond presupposed the use of a determined BWA technology, especially WiMAX.

Therefore, in general terms, considering the parties that provided some response to this question, the following is stated:

• Seven parties (Alcatel-Lucent, Ericsson, Mr Hugo Cunha, Intel Corporation, Onitelecom, Manuel de Azevedo and ZTE) stated that the connection to end user would be the preferred or more suitable use for BWA applications, or associate these applications essentially with end users.
   
• Three parties (Grupo PT, Grupo SGC Telecom, Radiomóvel) also considered that BWA applications should be earmarked first of all for connection to end user, but went on to say that in certain situations BWA could be more suited to the establishment of transmission networks connections or to connections between operators of the "backhaul" type;
• Four parties (Samsung Electronics UK, Sonaecom, Vodafone, WiMAX Forum) stated that BWA technologies could be used with connection to end user as much as they could be used with transmission network/backhaul;
   
• Neuvex stated that the most suitable use for BWA technologies depended on the objectives for which the various standards that support the technologies were developed. It stated that there were technologies that only envisaged final connection to the customer (as in the case of 3G technologies) and others that could be used as much in the transmission network as in the connection to the final customer (as in the case of WiMAX technology, based on the IEEE 802.16 standard).

d) What types of service could be offered by each technology? Please explain in concrete terms the amount of spectrum needed to provide these services and the capabilities of the identified technologies.

The parties that responded to the consultation generally considered that BWA technologies made the provision of a wide range of services possible. Moreover, several parties (Neuvex, Onitelecom, Samsung, Sonae, WiMAX Fórum and ZTE Corporation) pointed to the possibility of quality of service differentiation and the variable use of modulation, in the case of WiMAX in particular, as being determining factors that could make a broad offer possible on the same infrastructure, with more traditional services coexisting with more demanding services such as real time video or multicast services.

The parties who provided a more or less complete direct or indirect response to this question identified a range of services which they considered could be offered (in isolated form, in dual play, or even in triple play) with basis in BWA technologies, in some cases specifying the bit rate necessary. The services identified included:

• Voice calls;
• Internet access (3 to 10 Mbps);
• File transfer;
• Peer-to-peer applications;
• Emailing;
• Instant Messaging;
• Gaming;
• Video-Conferencing;
• Video-On-Demand (VOD);
• Broadcast TV (2 to 6 Mbps);
• Interactive TV(> 3 Mbps);
• Mobile TV;
• Multicast;
• Telematics;
• Home automation or security services.

Grupo SGC Telecom further specified the frequencies which they saw as being best suited to each type of service, indicating the 3.6 GHz band for final customer access (in virtue of its range, NloS capability and mobility) and for what it calls last meter (vertical distribution) in buildings/blocks, 12 GHz to 18 GHz band for point-to-point applications (due to the bandwidth) and the 24 GHz to 32 GHz band for applications, both with distribution to the final customer in sparsely populated areas where the capacity/range relation is economically favourable, and with backhaul to services of distribution to the final customer in lower frequencies with BWA or other technologies.

As far as the spectrum needs are concerned, most of the parties consider the consignment of a minimum of 2×21 MHz to be sufficient for the supply of the services identified above, possibly rising to 2×25 MHz (in both cases including guard bands). Nevertheless, one of the parties presented calculations based on specific presuppositions, and in this way defined the spectrum that it considers to be necessary as 2×30 MHz (or 2×28 MHz, with an additional 2 MHz guard band). The spectrum needs presented is, among other things, in accordance with the version of the technology implemented by the operator as well as with the radio parameters used in network planning.

e) What is the target market and how big is the market envisaged for the technologies/services offered?

Most of the responses to this question were general. They neither considered a detailed discussion on technology nor were they sufficiently specific on its size, with most of parties considering services for the final user as being the target market (in residential and corporate segments). The positions of the various parties on this subject, which are summarised below, reveal some differences, related mostly to the positions that the parties have in the market, as well as their respective strategies for the application/use of BWA technologies.

a) Manuel de Azevedo, U Lda. considers that "The type of target market that could use this type of technology would be the domestic market whose final customers, as well as having typical broadband internet access, could have access to new services, "video-on-demand", interactive television (...)".

b) Grupo SGC Telecom considers that BWA would allow the provision of services, with national coverage, in urban and rural areas, essentially directed at Households, SMEs, with the view of BWA as a platform that could compete with copper and cable, which could attain market shares of between 10% and 30% and could contribute to competition in the sector supported by a more balanced and dynamic infrastructure. It also believes that the size of the market corresponds to the sum of Portuguese families and companies.

c) The Intel Corporation considers that BWA would allow the provision of mobile wireless service, increasing competition. The company says that initially the services could be based on fixed and/or nomadic type applications, but that mobile services could be accessed once compatibility studies have been completed.

d) Radiomóvel states that the segment which encompasses the services listed in the previous point is made up of users of broadband service who value flexibility in use and that the basis of this market, which consists of computer users who need broadband connectivity, is formed by users of portable computers, who today account for the majority of sales in our country.

e) Vodafone considers that the target market will consist of the totality of the national population with need of internet access, with particular emphasis on specific customer groups, especially companies, technology centres (corporate and university) and local communities with communication service needs that are out of the ordinary, or whose needs are insufficiently met by the capabilities of technologies in use, either for technical reasons or due to a lack of economic viability.

f) Neuvex considers that, in relation to 3G technologies, the target market is the stand-alone user, owing to the characteristics of the technology. The company forecasts that its evolution in terms of market will be in line with that of GSM, with its trend of migration from this system to the 3G system. In relation to WiMAX technologies, it states that their flexibility allows an identical user to 3G but also in the market of small and medium companies, so competing with the products currently being offered by cable operators.

g) Onitelecom considers that WiMAX technology could compliment the offers of fixed operators with new possibilities in global terms of typical voice and data services in the small and medium sized corporate markets, offering new services, especially the possibility of nomadic use as a way of "delocalising" employees. The company adds that, being a medium range radio network, it could also complement the offers of the new operators outside the more dense areas and enhance the reliability of services when proposed to customers as redundancy to the traditional physical means. Finally it considers that the residential market could be addressed by these technologies, if the technological development, the regulatory framework and total exploitation costs show themselves more favourable and allow competition with the costs currently achievable in copper networks.

h) Sonaecom considers that in the case of fixed access BWA technologies, especially that defined by the IEEE 802.16d standard, the target market is that of transmission services, both in terms of self-supply and in wholesale offering to third parties. Secondly it states there is a potential market at a retail level (residential and corporate), but that in practise this market should be considerably more limited, being dependent on the synergies which the licensed operators would be able to achieve with the networks in their possession. It further states that the target retail market should be that of telecommunication services in areas that are currently poorly served by fixed access networks, with the potential value of this market being considerably lower than that existing in more populated areas and already well served by fixed networks. Even in urban areas it considers that BWA would be a difficult alternative for new operators who desire to enter the market or even for existing operators who don’t ha
ve an existing network to which BWA would bring significant synergies.  It also states that, in the case of BWA technologies that allow nomadic access, especially as a result of the implementation of the 802.16-e standard and despite the need for an in-depth economic feasibility study that goes further than this consultation, it considers that the market with a view to an implementation solely of mobile applications is currently limited. Finally the company adds that, notwithstanding the technological potential described, the uncertainty associated with the growth of the costs underlying this mobility prevents the identification of a commercial opportunity which does not go beyond a complement of 3G technologies, ensuring supplementary capacity in high-traffic zones and ensuring potentially higher bit streams with which the same operator can offer a credible fixed-mobile convergent offer and with sufficient capacity to support the expected increase in consumer needs (which result, for example and among other factors, from the changing trend in internet usage from browsing to the frequent use of audio and video streaming).