The Office of the Telecommunications Authority (OFTA) is the telecoms regulator in Hong Kong and is uniquely placed to assess the needs of satellite and telecoms players in terms of C-band spectrum. Danny Lau, assistant director of operations at OFTA, talks to Via Satellite on the regulator's views of the C-band issue and how it will impact the communications landscape in Hong Kong.
Via Satellite: What is your take on the demands for C-band spectrum resources and the competing arguments of telecoms and satellite players? Can the two sides reach a compromise?
Lau: Traditionally, telecom services — e.g. mobile services — mainly operate in frequency bands below gigahertz, whereas fixed satellite services mainly operate in frequency bands above 3 gigahertz. Owing to the increasing demands for telecom services, frequency bands below 2 gigahertz have already been fully utilized in most countries. As radiocommunications technologies advance, it is now technically feasible to operate telecom services in higher frequency bands.
As there is no spectrum available in the frequency bands below 2 gigahertz for telecom services, telecom players therefore start to look for spectrum in the 2 to 4 gigahertz for their services. On the other hand, there are still many users — e.g. telecom operators in developing countries, broadcasters, etc. — who wish to use the entire C-band as well as the extended C-Band for satellite services. To satisfy users’ demand, there seems to be not much room for the satellite players to give concession.
Via Satellite: One of the arguments of satellite players that is being overshadowed is the importance of C-band in developing countries for providing basic communications. What would be the ramifications for these territories if this C-band capacity was assigned to terrestrial mobile players rather than satellite?
Lau: This is exactly the issue that needs to be addressed. If some C-band capacity were assigned to terrestrial mobile players, what are the alternatives to meet the communication requirements of the developing countries which have been relying heavily on the use of C-band satellites? One alternative is to build a land-submarine fiber optic cable infrastructure. However, unlike Hong Kong, which is a small place, provision of such infrastructure would be costly and may not be an acceptable alternative to many developing countries.
Via Satellite: How likely is it that satellite players are going to lose some of this C-band capacity?
Lau: WRC-07 will discuss this issue. In Hong Kong, the entire C-band is solely allocated for satellite services. No fixed links are operating in this band. While there are earth stations operating in C-band, under our open sky policy this band is mainly use for reception of satellite TV programmes by TVRO (television receive only) and satellite master antenna television (SMATV) users.
While many satellite players, such as the satellite operators, have been deploying spectrum efficient technologies in order to increase the capacity to be carried in their satellite transponders, the satellite users, mainly TVRO and SMATV users, in many countries, including Hong Kong, are reluctant to cooperate. Most of them are still using analog receiving terminals because analog systems are much cheaper. This does not make efficient use of radio spectrum in the C-band. It is unlikely these users will automatically switch to use digital systems if they can still continuously receive satellite TV programs in analog form. Thus, it seems that there is room for improving the efficiency in the use of the spectrum in the C-band.
If the spectrum policy of a country is to ensure efficient use of spectrum and if satellite players have not maximized spectrum efficiency in the C-band, the country will certainly support the allocation of some spectrum in the C-band to telecom players. However, in many developing countries, satellite services are wholly or partially state owned. The loss of spectrum in the C-band for satellite services may have financial implication. They may have additional consideration in casting a vote on such decision.
Email
Comments
Print
Reuse
