The recent consultation paper from the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) on “Allocation and Pricing of Spectrum in 2.3-2.4 GHz, 2.5-2.69 GHz and 3.3-3.6 GHz bands” drew more than 30 responses from various stakeholders.
Opinions were sharply divided on the issue of reserve price for 3.3 GHz band. Many respondents (Reliance, Sify, Ortel, WiMAX Forum, Intel, and Telsima) opposed linking the pricing of 3G and BWA spectrum because of differences in range of services and potential returns. However, some (Nokia, Qualcomm, Ericsson, ComFirst and COAI) wanted the same reserve price for all the bands (including 2.1 GHz assigned for 3G) arguing that the same set of services can be provided in all the bands.
For auctioning 3.3 GHz spectrum, the earlier TRAI recommendation was acceptable to most although some (ISPAI, Sify, Spectranet, Ortel and Reliance) opposed auctions because of fears that it will inflate the price. The ISPs favoured allocation based on first-come-first-serve approach with priority to existing licensees while Reliance suggested using the ‘Beauty Parade’ option. BSNL wants to be exempted from paying entry and license fees. Zee Networks and BPL Mobile felt that the reserve price should be increased as the current figure is too low. For the reserve price of the 2.3 GHz and 2.5 GHz bands, three options were suggested:
1. Same as 3.3 GHz band (Reliance, AUSPI, WiMAX Forum)
2. Same as 2.1 GHz band (BPL, COAI, Ericsson, Nokia, Qualcomm)
3. Determined via market-discovery mechanisms (Aircel, Tata Teleservices, Tata Communications, Intel, WiMAX Forum, Zee Network)
A majority of respondents wanted only existing UASL holders and Category A ISPs to be eligible for BWA spectrum in 2.3 GHz and 2.5 GHz bands but some (BPL Mobile, Tata Communications, Ortel Communications) wanted Category B ISPs to be included as well. On the other hand, COAI wanted only UASL operators to be eligible while Tata Teleservices suggested that UASL operators have priority in spectrum allocation. In contrast, Zee Networks proposed that cellular operators should be excluded and MSOs and broadcasters included. The ISPs (and ISPAI) felt that they should be allowed to retain spectrum currently allocated to them in 2.5 GHz and/or 3.3 GHz bands and also get priority in getting additional spectrum in these bands.
The suggested size of spectrum blocks for auction ranged from 5-20 MHz. Similarly, suggestions for minimum and maximum amount of spectrum holding varied quite a bit although there was consensus on the need for allocating spectrum in contiguous blocks. 30-40 MHz was deemed sufficient in the ideal case by most while 15-20 MHz appeared to be acceptable in case only limited amount is to be auctioned initially. Suggestions for upper limit on cumulative spectrum held by a licensee across the three bands (2.3 GHz, 2.5 GHz and 3.3 GHz) ranged from 20 to 45 MHz.
For allocations in the 2.5 GHz band, most respondents favoured the technology neutral approach, allowing both TDD and FDD systems, as per international best practices and related ITU recommendations. However, some (Reliance, AUSPI, Telsima) suggested allocation for TDD only, if limited amount of spectrum is available initially.
Divergent views were expressed on the question of future refarming spectrum in 2.5 GHz band if initial allocations are for TDD only. A few (BSNL, Telsima) felt that it is feasible from both technical and economic perspectives to refarm spectrum at a later date but others wanted to rule it out on various grounds:
· Technical and/or economic infeasibility (BPL Mobile, Reliance, COAI, Ericsson, Nokia)
· Not required as TDD only is not ruled out by the ITU band plans (Tata Communications, WiMAX Forum, Intel)
· Not possible due to license conditions, viz validity period (Tata Teleservices)
· Improve investor confidence by avoiding uncertainty (Cisco, Nokia)
The response of TV broadcasters, satellite services providers and cable operators was limited to the use of 3.3 GHz band for BWA services and they strongly opposed it for fear of disruption to their operations
