Reply Comments on Gazette Notice DGTP-003-08...there are good alternatives available for these FS...

Telesat Daniel S. GoldbergPresident & Chief Executive Officer

May 25, 2009

Pamela MillerActing Director GeneralTelecommunications Policy BranchIndustry Canada16lh Floor, 300 Slater StreetOttawa,ONKlA0C8

Re: DGTP-003-08 - Consultation Paper on the Possible Use of the Extended KuSpectrum Bands for Direct-to-Home (DTH) Satellite Broadcasting Services

Dear Ms. Miller:

Telesat is pleased to submit its reply comments on the consultation paper on the possibleuse of the Extended Ku bands for DTH satellite broadcasting services.

Expeditious approval of the proposed change in policy as outlined in our submissiondated April 17, 2009 and reply comments which follow will permit Telesat toimmediately commence the construction and investment in a new Extended Ku bandsatellite valued at several hundred million dollars. Should the department require furtherinformation regarding this Gazette Notice response, please contact:

Ms. Michele BeckDirector EngineeringTelesatTel: 613-748-8700 ext. 2757E-mail: mbeck(S|telesat.com

Respectfully submitted,

Daniel S. Goldberg

Enclosure

1601 Telesat Court, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1B 5P4Tel: +1-613-748-8744 Fax: +1-613-748-8804 Email: [email protected]

Telesat Canada Reply Comments

submitted to

Industry Canada Spectrum Management and Telecommunications

on

Consultation Paper on the Possible Use of the Extended-Ku Spectrum

Bands for Direct-to-Home (DTH) Satellite Broadcasting Services (DGTP-003-08, issued December 2008)

May 25, 2009

Telesat Canada 1601 Telesat Court

Ottawa, ON K1B 5P4

613-748-8700

- i -

Executive Summary In these Reply Comments, Telesat submits that the initial round of Comments filed in response to the Consultation Paper corroborates the need for an urgent change in Industry Canada’s spectrum utilization policies to accommodate the provisioning of Direct to Home (“DTH”) services in the Extended Ku (“xKu”) frequency band.

Telesat notes that the majority of Comments support the “FSS Proposals” for DTH use of the xKu band. These comments were advanced by Telesat, Shaw, several broadcasters and other representatives of the broadcasting industry, and other satellite users and suppliers.

The only Comments that opposed the FSS proposals came from certain Fixed Service (“FS”) users who contend that they require continued use of the xKu band, mostly for terrestrial microwave links to backhaul the growing volume of mobile wireless data traffic. In reply to the FS Comments, Telesat’s Reply Comments indicate that:

• The FS Comments did not dispute the fact that more DTH satellite capacity is urgently required for Shaw to meet Canadian policy objectives related to the rollout of HDTV and other services. Instead, they argued that other frequency bands should be used for such DTH expansion, such as the Ka band or the RDBS band. However, they provided no analysis of the suitability of such other bands. Nothing in the FS Comments contradicted the clear evidence provided by Telesat to demonstrate that neither the Ka band or the RDBS band provides a viable solution to meet the near term DTH requirements in the Shaw orbital neighbourhood.

• The FS Comments made general claims about their need for the xKu spectrum, but

these were not supported by any data or research on their use of this band, nor on the availability of alternative bands and transmission media such as fibre optics.

• More specifically, no data or analyses are provided in the FS Comments that

contradict the research conducted by Lemay-Yates for Telesat which shows that: ▪ there are relatively few licensed FS transmitters in the xKu bands; and ▪ there are good alternatives available for these FS transmitters. In

particular, most xKu-band transmitters could be moved to the Allotment band. In addition, alternatives are available in the FS bands below 11 GHz and the 12.7, 15, 18 and 23 GHz bands, among others. Finally, wireline alternatives, e.g. terrestrial fibre-optic networks are the logical alternative in many cases. These can be more efficient and reliable, and can provide greater capacity to handle large scale growth in mobile broadband traffic.

• Independent of Telesat, Shaw undertook some technical analysis to determine the

viability of moving FS transmitters from the xKu band. Using a quite different analytical approach (based on ITU recommendations), the Shaw study reached the same conclusion as Lemay-Yates: the vast majority of FS links in the xKu band can be supported in the Allotment band with few or no coordination challenges.

- ii -

• The only significant point made in the FS comments about the need for more

spectrum was that there will be an ‘explosion’ in the growth of mobile broadband data traffic as new cellular technologies are adopted. Telesat does not dispute that such growth will occur. However, it would not be good policy to permit all usable spectrum in multiple bands to be devoted to mobile broadband backhaul. Mobile broadband providers should act early to design high capacity links, using fibre optics and other available spectrum resources, to avoid saturating all usable bands with mobile backhaul traffic.

• In determining the best use of the limited xKu-band spectrum, Industry Canada

should keep in mind that this band provides the only viable solution for near-term expansion of DTH capacity for Shaw Direct, enabling it to roll out advanced video services such as HDTV. Conversely, as the Lemay-Yates reports indicate, there are a number of other spectrum bands as well as other transmission media, such as fibre optics, available to help achieve the objectives of mobile broadband expansion. Good public policy therefore supports implementation of the FSS proposals.

• Contrary to the assertions of one of the FS Comments, the FSS proposal will have no

impact on manufacturing or design of FS equipment. • In reply to concerns raised in FS Comments that there may not be suitable

alternatives for existing FS transmitters in the xKu band, Telesat commissioned a supplemental report from Lemay-Yates that includes case by case analyses of the most congested markets in Canada. This research demonstrates that suitable alternatives are available for FS users, even in these most congested markets.

• The Joint FS Comments suggest that Industry Canada should harmonize spectrum

policy for the xKu band with the FCC in the United States. Telesat submits that there are very good reasons not to do so, based on differences between Canada and the United States. The current Canadian broadcast distribution system is much more efficient than that of the U.S. system. In Canada a single Ku band satellite platform is used to deliver the same advanced TV services to DTH subscribers and to approximately 4.5 million subscribers of cable systems, many in small and remote communities. By contrast, U.S. satellite operators use DBS satellites for DTH customers, and C-band satellites to transmit the same services to cable head ends. While the U.S. market may be large enough to permit such duplication, in the smaller Canadian market our more efficient ‘dual-purpose’ system serves both DTH subscribers and small cable system subscribers across the country at a reasonable cost. Since no additional Ku-band spectrum is available in the Shaw orbital neighbourhood, use of the xKu band is urgently required to maintain this efficient distribution system.

• The supplemental Lemay-Yates report includes an analysis of the spectrum available

for FS users in Canada and in the United States, a country with far larger telecom operators and FS transmission requirements. This analysis concludes that there is, in

- iii -

fact, 25% more capacity potentially available for fixed service use in Canada than there is in the United States–even assuming the Industry Canada proposals to move FS out of the xKu bands and part of the 15 GHz band are implemented. Thus, while Canadian FS spectrum requirements should be smaller than those in the United States, considerably more good-quality spectrum is available for FS use in Canada. The obvious conclusion is that the FSS proposal to segment the xKu band evenly between FS and FSS use, will leave more than adequate spectrum available in Canada for FS users if they manage their spectrum use efficiently.

• Finally, Telesat strongly disputes the implication in the Joint FS Comments that this

Industry Canada Consultation Process is not a “real” policy review. These Comments imply that if Industry Canada wishes to change its spectrum policy, further consultations and proceedings would be required. Telesat respectfully submits that this suggestion is merely a delaying tactic. The Industry Canada Consultation Process has been properly run as a formal proceeding. Adequate notice of the purpose of the review was given via the Canada Gazette and other media. If Industry Canada decides to implement the FSS proposals, Telesat submits that the Department should do so expeditiously in order to expand access to advanced multi-channel video services across Canada without further delay.

- iv -

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... i 1. Introduction..............................................................................................................................1 2. Other Frequency Bands Will Not Meet Near-Term DTH Requirements ................................3 3. FS Users have Viable Alternatives to the xKu Band...............................................................6 4. There are Good Reasons for Not Harmonizing xKu Band Use with the United States ........14 5. Reply to SkyTerra and TerraStar Comments.........................................................................16 6. Status of the Industry Canada Consultation Process..............................................................17 7. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................19 APPENDICES: Appendix 1 – Supplemental Report of Lemay-Yates Associates Inc..............................................1 Appendix 2 – Advantech Letter.......................................................................................................2

1

1. Introduction

1.01 These Reply Comments are filed by Telesat Canada (“Telesat”) in accordance with the process set out in Industry Canada’s Consultation Paper on the Possible Use of the Extended-Ku Spectrum Bands for Direct-to-Home (DTH) Satellite Broadcasting Services, DGTP-003-08, issued December 2008 (the “Consultation Paper”).

1.02 At the outset, since the terminology has been used differently in different Comments, we will clarify the terminology used in this Reply and in the “FSS proposals”1. We refer to the 11 GHz band (10.7 – 11.7 GHz) as being divided into two parts, the “Allotment band” and the “Extended Ku band”, which we also refer to as the “xKu” band. The Allotment band comprises 500 MHz divided into two sub-bands (10.7 – 10.95 GHz and 11.2 – 11.45 GHz). The xKu band also comprises 500 MHz, divided into two different sub-bands (10.95 – 11.2 GHz and 11.45 – 11.7 GHz). Under the FSS proposal, the FS2 users will have priority use of the Allotment band, and the FSS users will have priority use over the xKu bands, for DTH and related broadcast delivery purposes. This proposal is displayed below:

FSS Proposal

FSS Priority Use

FS Priority Use

1.03 Telesat was pleased to note that most of the Comments filed in response to the Consultation Paper support a change to Industry Canada’s spectrum utilization policies3 to accommodate the provisioning of DTH services in the Extended Ku frequency bands. Most Comments specifically supported the FSS proposals.

1.04 Telesat notes that the submissions filed by broadcasters and broadcasting associations (other than those affiliated with FS users) strongly support an expeditious policy change to accommodate DTH use in the xKu bands. The broadcast industry understands that the proposed policy change provides the only means through which the Government of Canada can ensure the near-term expansion of satellite capacity that is urgently required to carry HDTV and other advanced broadcasting services. Strong support for the FSS

1 In these Reply Comments, we refer to the proposals made by Telesat, Star Choice (now known as “Shaw Direct”) and Shaw Broadcast Services (“SBS” ) as the “FSS proposals”. FSS refers to Fixed Satellite Service. 2 Refers to Fixed Service. 3 In particular, Spectrum Utilization Policy (SP 3-30 GHz) – Revisions to Spectrum Utilization Policies in the 3-30 GHz Frequency Range and Further Consultation (http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf05617.html).

2

proposals was also provided by two other satellite operators, Ciel Satellite Group and Intelsat Corporation, and by other industry players.

1.05 Understandably, the only significant concerns expressed about the FSS proposals came in Comments from the FS users, who currently use the xKu band, among other bands, to operate digital microwave facilities, primarily for backhaul links to commercial mobile networks.

1.06 Telesat notes that while the FS users expressed concerns about their need for the xKu band, and made general statements to the effect that other suitable options were not available to them, they did not provide any empirical analysis to buttress their claim. In contrast, both Telesat and Shaw4 provided specific data and analysis in their Comments, which clearly indicate that FS users have access to a wide range of other microwave frequency bands that might be used as alternatives to the extended Ku band. Telesat filed a detailed report prepared by Lemay-Yates on the extent of FS use of the xKu band and the availability of other options for FS users.

1.07 Various Comments of FS users asserted that it is essential for them to have continued access to the full 11 GHz band, including the xKu band, and that suitable alternatives are not available to them. Telesat disagrees. The data provided in this proceeding do not support the FS users’ assertions. However, to provide additional support for Telesat’s view that suitable alternatives do exist, Telesat commissioned a supplemental report from Lemay-Yates, which describes FS use of the xKu band in the four major Canadian markets that would present the greatest technical challenges for relocation of FS transmitters from the extended Ku-band.

1.08 This supplemental report is attached as Appendix 1 to these Reply Comments. The report focuses on the most congested markets in Canada, the ones where suitable alternatives might, arguably, be the most difficult to locate. The report provides a roadmap for the orderly transfer of the FS transmitters to other bands and transmission media in these most challenging markets. It concludes that:

… The case study analysis considered the most congested areas in order to assess what relocation options might exist. Based on that analysis, we have concluded conservatively that a substantial majority of the 11GHz links located in the Extended Ku bands 10.95-11.2 GHz and 11.45-11.7 GHz can be accommodated in the allotment bands (i.e. the “lower portion” of the 11 GHz band).

Furthermore, other bands are available and should be considered as alternatives for XKu band users, specifically for long-haul, short-haul and access links in order to make more efficient use of spectrum resources going forward. If more appropriate bands and technologies, such as fibre, are considered and deployed, it

4 We use the term “Shaw” to refer to Shaw Communications Inc. and its affiliates, Shaw Direct and Shaw Broadcast Services.

3

will relieve the pressure that FS users claim exists in the 11GHz band and still support future growth in the 10.7-10.95 and 11.2-11.45 GHz bands.5

1.09 Shaw and Lemay-Yates used different methodologies to study the possibility of accommodating all 425 FS links operating the XKu band in the Allotment band. Shaw performed the analysis using Recommendation ITU-R F.758-4 to determine the minimum distance between transmit and receive sites. The analysis was conducted for all sites in both the Allotment and Extended Ku bands. Lemay-Yates used a different approach based on frequency re-use within larger geographic areas for the four most congested cities. The Lemay-Yates report also used a different, somewhat later time frame. Nonetheless, using two quite different analytical approaches, both studies arrived at the same conclusion—that the vast majority of the links could be supported in the Allotment band with no or little coordination challenges.

1.10 Telesat respectfully submits that although the FS users made a number of statements to the contrary, their Comments provided little or no data that contradict the detailed research provided by Telesat and the Shaw companies. In particular, the Comments of FS users did not contradict the research clearly indicating that:

(a) there is no technically and financially viable near-term alternative to the xKu band for DTH use by the Shaw companies;

(b) there are relatively few FS transmitters operating in the xKu band (approximately 425)—far fewer than in many other FS microwave bands, including the Allotment band; and

(c) there are viable alternative bands and other transmission media, such as fibre networks, available to accommodate the relatively small number of FS transmitters currently operating in the xKu bands.

2. Other Frequency Bands Will Not Meet Near-Term DTH Requirements

2.01 In part 2 of its Comments, Telesat demonstrated that more satellite capacity is urgently required to permit Shaw Direct to provide advanced multi-channel video services to its more than 900,000 DTH subscribers. Expanding satellite capacity will also enable SBS, which uses the same satellite platform, to provide comparable advanced services to the estimated 4.5 million subscribers served by the 400 BDUs in 2,000 Canadian communities that receive broadcast television signals from SBS.. The Comments of the Canadian broadcast industry corroborated the urgent need for expanded satellite capacity for DTH and broadcast delivery services.

2.02 The Comments of the FS users did not dispute the fact that more satellite capacity is urgently required to meet the broadcasting policy objectives cited in the Telesat and Shaw and broadcasting industry’s Comments. However, some Comments of the FS users suggested that other frequency bands might be used to meet the satellite service

5 See pages 5-6.

4

requirements of the Shaw companies.

2.03 For example, the “Joint FS Comments” state that: “Not all direct-to-home service providers agree with the position that extended Ku is the only option available. ExpressVu believes that BSS properly belongs in the Ka band for purposes of global development, and Ka options should be exhausted first.”6 The Joint FS Comments subsequently add that: “On the FSS side, there are alternatives to the Ku band for DTH broadcasting services, namely the use of Ka bands 17.3-17.8 GHz7 and 18.3-19.3 GHz for which satellite technology is available as evidenced by the number of FSS applicants for licenses in the U.S..”8

2.04 Unlike the Telesat Comments, however, the Comments of the various FS users were apparently not based on any research or serious analysis of the implications of using other bands, such as the Ka band or the RDBS band, to meet the near-term DTH requirements of the Shaw companies. Thus, while it is true that the Ka band could be used for DTH purposes in some applications, the Joint FS Comments did not deal with the following issues which prevent the Ka band from being a viable alternative for the near-term Shaw DTH requirements:

(a) There are major technical barriers which prevent the use of the Ka band to provide full-Canada DTH coverage comparable to that which is provided in the Ku band and which could be provided in the xKu band. These are described in the Telesat Comments.9 Ka-band use for single-beam Canada-wide DTH coverage would be inefficient and expensive, taking into account the high-power satellite and larger consumer antennas that such use would require. To obtain equivalent performance and availability in the Ka band as in the Ku (or xKu) band would require a significantly larger (85cm or larger) consumer antenna,10 an impractical solution that would place Shaw Direct at a distinct competitive disadvantage relative to other video alternatives, including Canadian and U.S. DTH services, cable and Internet alternatives.

(b) Due to its higher frequencies and propagation characteristics, the Ka band is used almost exclusively in North America for spot beam broadband services and regional, rather than national, DTH applications. Bell TV’s ‘freesat’ proposal is a good example of regional spot-beam use of Ka band spectrum. There are other examples in the United States where Ka spot beam coverage is used to deliver local TV programming into a limited geographical area. However, use of the Ka band for the single-beam full-Canada DTH coverage required by Shaw Direct and SBS would not be a suitable use for that band.11

6 Joint FS Comments, 4th page, first paragraph. 7 This band is in fact the 17 GHz BSS band, referred to as the RDBS band in Telesat’s Comments. 8 Joint FS Comments, 5th page, last paragraph. 9 Telesat Comments, s. 8. 10 Telesat Comments, s. 10.06. 11 Telesat Comments, s. 8.05.

5

(c) A Ka-band DTH satellite launched into the Shaw orbital neighbourhood would be susceptible to high levels of interference resulting from use of the Ka band on adjacent (two degrees or less spacing) Canadian or foreign-licensed satellites operating with high power spot beams to provide Internet connectivity.12

(d) The incremental costs of satellite space and CPE technology associated with a Ka-band satellite make it an unsuitable solution to meet the near-term requirements for a satellite to deliver national DTH signals for Shaw Direct in its orbital neighbourhood.13

2.05 On the latter point, Telesat’s Comments described in considerable detail the problems associated with procuring CPE (dish antennas and related electronics) for a DTH service using either the Ka band or the RDBS band.14 The Joint FS Comments deal with this issue in very summary fashion and with no supporting data, simply stating: “Furthermore, the design and installation of new residential antennas is common practice in the DTH business as part of capacity expansion investments.”15

2.06 It is true that DTH service providers have, in the past, had to design and install new CPE as their service evolved. Indeed, Shaw Direct will have to invest an estimated $67.5 million in order to adapt to use the xKu band. However, this cost is small in comparison to the cost of a system-wide replacement of existing CPE, including new larger antennas, which would be required to use the Ka band.16

2.07 As previously indicated, a Ka-band dish would have to be much larger than a Ku-band dish – requiring the replacement of Shaw Direct’s entire installed base of 900,000 dishes and/or requiring customers to install a second dish. As described in Telesat’s and Shaw’s Comments, requiring customers to buy significantly larger dishes, and/or to buy two dishes instead of one, would place Shaw Direct at an unacceptable, and ultimately non-viable, competitive disadvantage.

2.08 Finally, in reply to the statement in the Joint FS Comments that redesigning dishes is a common practice in the DTH industry, it should be kept in mind that the better practice adopted by efficient satellite operators and DTH service providers is to develop their ‘orbital neighbourhoods’ to comprise satellites with compatible frequencies that can be accessed with a small single dish antenna. This is a good practice which avoids the need for repeated and costly redesign and replacement of CPE.

2.09 Telesat submits that this practice is far superior from a network efficiency and consumer cost perspective. Indeed, this practice of developing orbital neighbourhoods where a group of satellites provide a large range of services on compatible frequencies is widely used by Telesat’s European-based competitors. The practice is supported by their regulators to facilitate the development of more efficient satellite delivery systems.

12 ibid 13 Telesat Comments, s. 10. 14 Telesat Comments, s. 10.02(c), 10.05 and 10.06. 15 Joint FS Comments, 4th page, first paragraph. 16 Telesat Comments, s. 10.05.

6

Telesat submits that Industry Canada’s spectrum utilization policies should similarly promote this cost-effective practice and not require repeated redesign of CPE, as is implied in the Joint FS Comments. Adoption of the FSS proposals by Industry Canada would be consistent with this good practice.

FS Users Comments Did Not Contradict Key Points of FSS Proposal 2.10 Finally, while the Comments of FS users made various suggestions that other frequency

bands should be used to meet near-term DTH requirements, we note that these Comments contained no arguments or data to contradict the following points made in Telesat’s Comments:

(a) The xKu band is used extensively for DTH purposes around the world, and as a result the required satellite technology and CPE are proven, available and cost-effective;17

(b) The RDBS band would not provide a viable option to meet near-term DTH

requirements, since development of the RDBS band will be delayed by regulatory uncertainty18, and an RDBS solution will remain significantly more expensive than an xKu band solution in the near term19 owing to the high costs associated with RDBS satellite and CPE technology; and

(c) An xKu-band satellite can provide necessary backup for existing conventional

Ku-band DTH and broadcast delivery services, something that could not be done by any of the other satellite band options suggested in the Comments of FS users.20

3. FS Users have Viable Alternatives to the xKu Band

3.01 In its Comments, and in the attached research commissioned from Lemay-Yates Associates, Inc., Telesat demonstrated that:

• there are relatively few licensed FS transmitters in the xKu bands; and • there are good alternatives available for these FS transmitters; in particular, retuning

xKu-band transmitters to the Allotment band portion of the 11 GHz band, moving the links to other microwave bands below 11 GHz and to the 12.7, 15, 18 and 23 GHz bands, and migrating to wireline alternatives, e.g. terrestrial fibre-optic networks, which can provide greatly increased capacity.

17 Telesat Comments, ss. 4 and 5. 18 Telesat Comments, s. 9. 19 Telesat Comments, s. 10. 20 Telesat Comments, s. 6

7

3.02 In their Comments, FS users made a number of arguments that contradicted these points. Those arguments, which were generally unsubstantiated by any data or research, will be examined in the following sections.

Growth in Mobile Data Traffic Will Require Transition from Wireless to Fibre Backhaul 3.03 A major argument of the FS users is that mobile data traffic will explode, and therefore

they will need all the spectrum they can find for mobile data backhaul microwave links, including the spectrum in the xKu band. For example, the Rogers Comments state:21

As the popularity of smartphone devices grows, mobile data usage will explode. A recent and widely reported study regarding mobile data trends noted that the popular iPhone smartphone device typically generates 30 times the mobile data traffic of a basic-feature mobile phone and that lap-tops equipped with a 3.5G modem will generate 450 times the traffic of a basic mobile phone. It is not surprising therefore that mobile data traffic is currently forecast to double every year between 2009 and 2013.

3.04 Telesat agrees that mobile data use is likely to expand very significantly over the coming years, and that mobile carriers will need to upgrade their backhaul networks to meet this demand. However, it would be inconsistent with sound spectrum management policy to permit this large new single-purpose demand to ‘swamp’ the available spectrum capacity in all usable bands. With such projected exponential growth in demand, the availability of suitable microwave spectrum would soon be exhausted, whether or not policy changes are made with respect to the 11 GHz band.

3.05 It would run contrary to good public policy to prevent the timely use of the xKu band to achieve important broadcasting and advanced video service objectives in an efficient manner, in order to accommodate heavy short-term use of the xKu band by mobile wireless services. Such use will be short-term, since development of high-capacity fibre and other microwave links will inevitably be required to support rapid growth of data over the carriers’ networks. Good public policy and network planning principles would suggest that fibre optic facilities or other high-capacity backhaul facilities should be encouraged, planned and installed in high-demand locations as early as possible in the evolution to 3.5G cellular services.

3.06 The Joint FS Comments also argue that the movement of FS transmitters out of the xKu band:

….would be disruptive and costly for the Fixed Service Providers since it would result in the displacement of their fixed service backhaul systems from these bands and it would require that limited engineering and technical resources would be focused on replacing existing microwave backhaul links rather than implementing new technologies and services.22

21 Rogers Comments, s. 7. 22 Joint FS Comments, response to Q. 2 in Consultation Paper.

8

3.07 While there will be some costs associated with retuning terrestrial transmitters currently

operating in the xKu band, or their movement to alternative bands or transmission media, Telesat believes that the FS users would inevitably incur many of such costs over the next few years—whether or not the FSS proposal is adopted. Given the significant projected increase in mobile data traffic envisaged by the FS community, the mobile wireless industry will undoubtedly be required to redesign and expand its backhaul networks in any event. If the FSS proposal is adopted by Industry Canada, this will simply change the engineering specifications to be considered by the wireless industry in upgrading backhaul links.

3.08 Rogers in its Comments acknowledges the need to upgrade backhaul links to meet the growth in mobile data services, but argues:

In light of these developments, it is clear that wireless service providers such as Rogers must expand their backhaul facilities to support these burgeoning services and critical enablers. Although the use of fibre-optic systems is an important option for providing additional backhaul capacity, the use of microwave transmission will continue to be the preferred option in many cases.23

3.09 For the reasons set out in the following part of these Reply Comments, Telesat submits that the best use of the xKu spectrum is to enable near-term DTH expansion to meet the urgent requirements of the Canadian broadcast industry, a policy objective for which the xKu spectrum provides the only viable solution. In contrast, there are many other solutions for expanding mobile backhaul transmission links. As the Lemay-Yates reports indicate, there is adequate spectrum available in other mid-range spectrum bands. Spectrum bands optimized for long-haul or short-haul microwave links (i.e. above or below 11 GHz) can also be used. Indeed, these should properly be used in some cases where the xKu band is currently being used, or might be used in the future.

3.10 As Telesat’s Comments and the Lemay-Yates report indicate, there is a wide range of viable alternatives for FS users in the xKu band–while there are no viable near-term solutions for DTH service.

Spectrum Use Policy Should Support All Government Policies, Not Solely Mobile Policy 3.11 The Rogers Comments argue that:

The current [SP 3 – 30 GHz] policy balances the requirements of FSS and fixed service systems and ensures their compatibility by limiting FSS earth stations to non-ubiquitous deployments.24

3.12 Telesat could not disagree more. Under the current policy, where DTH use is not authorized in the xKu band, there is virtually no FSS use of that band. The Lemay-Yates

23 Rogers Comments, s. 8. 24 Rogers Comments, s. 18.

9

report attached to Telesat’s Comments indicates that there are 1529 FS transmitters in Canada operating in the 11 GHz band.25 At the same time there are only a total of 21 FSS earth station receivers at nine geographic locations licensed in this band. This is hardly a fair balance. The reason is clear – there are few FSS applications that require non-ubiquitous receivers, and these are in large part satisfied in the C band which is shared on an equal-priority basis between FS and FSS. Under the FSS proposal, there would be a more equitable balance, with FS transmitters having priority over 50% of the 11 GHz band, and FSS transmitters having priority over the other 50%.

3.13 The Joint FS Comments links the FS users’ need to access the xKu band to a number of public policy objectives, specifically:

It is important to note that the ongoing rollout of new and advanced mobile services has been imposed on certain mobile service providers as a condition of their spectrum licenses. The use of microwave backhaul facilities to support the provision of new and advanced mobile services is also consistent with Canadian Telecommunications Policy objectives which are intended, among other things, “to render reliable and affordable telecommunications services of high quality accessible to Canadians in both urban and rural areas in all regions of Canada”. Further, given that, in the 2009 budget, the federal government has allocated $225 million to develop and implement a strategy for extending broadband coverage to un-served communities, it is essential that the Department take steps to ensure that adequate spectrum is available for microwave backhaul systems used to provide mobile broadband services.26

3.14 As an initial response, Telesat notes that there does not appear to be a scarcity of spectrum in remote areas where underserved communities are located. Any challenges related to finding suitable spectrum for mobile broadband backhaul are likely to arise in more congested areas. As the Lemay-Yates supplemental report (Appendix 1) and the separate Shaw spectrum study conclude, there are adequate alternatives for xKu-band FS transmitters, even in the more congested areas.

3.15 Telesat is fully supportive of the rollout of advanced mobile services, the expansion of broadband coverage and the provision of reliable and affordable telecommunications services in all regions of Canada. However, Telesat submits that Industry Canada must balance these objectives cited in the Joint FS Comments with the other important communications policy objectives established by the Government of Canada and its agencies. Key among these are the broadcasting objectives described in Telesat’s Comments,27 which include the reliable and affordable delivery of advanced broadcasting services, such as HDTV, to all regions of Canada.

3.16 Industry Canada has made it clear that these broadcasting policy objectives are also a key part of the Department’s own policy objectives. In its 2006 Call for Applications to Licence Satellite Orbital Positions, Industry Canada set out its “General Satellite Policy

25 Lemay-Yates report, Appendix 6 to Telesat’s Comments, Table 1. 26 Joint FS Comments, 2nd page, last paragraph. 27 Telesat Comments, s. 2.

10

Objectives”.28 In the section of the Call that describes those objectives, the Department stated:

Recently, the Department conducted extensive consultations with Canadian broadcasters and other stakeholders on the evolution of broadcasting systems. As a result of these consultations and other indicators, it is clear that moving forward with high-definition TV and other specialized programming, combined with the foreseen changes in the regulatory environment, will require significant new satellite capacity. These services will be expected to be delivered to all parts of Canada. This Call for Applications introduces a process to facilitate consultation between Canadian satellite users and potential applicants to identify, address and satisfy foreseeable satellite capacity and service requirements. The Department expects that several orbital positions available in this licensing process will be used to advance the Canadian broadcasting system and address the requirements of Canadian broadcasting undertakings, permitting Canadian Direct-to-Home broadcasters to expand their service offerings and achieve greater economies and operational flexibility. 29

3.17 Unfortunately, unless Industry Canada authorizes use of the xKu band for DTH services, none of the satellites licensed after the Call for Applications is capable of meeting the near-term requirements for Shaw’s DTH service expansion.

3.18 For the reasons set out in Telesat’s Comments,30 Shaw’s Comments and those of other broadcasting industry participants, the xKu band provides the only viable solution for near-term DTH expansion by Shaw Direct. None of the Comments of FS users dispute the fact that use of the xKu band would clearly promote the most rapid introduction of reliable and affordable advanced broadcasting services, such as HDTV, to all regions of Canada. Use of the xKu band will permit achievement of this objective in the near term, when it is critically required. In addition, near-term DTH capacity expansion would permit Shaw Direct to meet other policy objectives, including compliance with the BDU regulatory requirements, recently established by the CRTC, to carry all Canadian broadcasting services mandated by it.31

3.19 In this context, Telesat notes, as did several of the Comments filed in response to the Consultation Paper,32 that it was Industry Canada itself that first suggested use of the xKu band for ubiquitous services such as DTH, in a 2004 meeting with the Canadian Satellite Users Association. Much to the surprise of Telesat, Shaw and other parties, in its 2006 orbital slot licensing decision Industry Canada interpreted its SP 3-30 GHz policy so as to deny Telesat’s application for a licence for an xKu band satellite to provide DTH services in the Shaw Direct orbital neighbourhood. In its Consultation Paper, the Department has now properly re-opened the issue of use of the xKu band for DTH services, an issue which, if resolved in accordance with the FSS proposal, will

28 Notice No. DGRB-001-06 — Call for Applications to Licence Satellite Orbital Positions. 29 ibid, s. 6.1 30 Telesat Comments, s. 2. 31 Telesat Comments, s. 1.03. 32 Canadian Broadcast Distribution Association Comments, p. 2; Shaw Comments, s. 36.

11

permit the near-term expansion of DTH capacity in Shaw Direct’s orbital neighbourhood.

3.20 At this stage, Telesat submits that Industry Canada should not take a narrow interpretation of whether the existing language of the SP 3-30 GHz policy may or may not have been intended to permit DTH use of the xKu band. Instead, Telesat respectfully submits that Industry Canada should undertake a broader assessment of the policy and market implications of such use, unburdened by past interpretations of SP 3-30 GHz.

3.21 In balancing the important policy objectives related to expansion of advanced mobile data services and expansion of advanced broadcasting services, such as HDTV, Telesat submits that the key policy issue is: what is the best use of the limited xKu-band spectrum in Canada. Telesat submits that use of the band for DTH purposes is clearly the best public policy option. The xKu band is uniquely suited to expanding near-term DTH capacity in the Shaw Direct orbital neighbourhood, and provides the only means of meeting the important related Canadian broadcasting policy objectives in the near term.

3.22 On the other hand, as the Telesat Comments point out, the xKu band is only one of a number of different bands and other transmission media that can be used for mobile backhaul purposes. Moreover, use of the xKu portion of the 11 GHz band for DTH will leave adequate capacity in the Allotment portion of that band, and in the other frequency bands and transmission media identified in the Lemay-Yates report, to provide mobile backhaul capacity and to achieve the other telecommunications policy objectives cited in the Joint FS Comments.

Soft Segmentation of 11 GHZ Band Will Not Affect Equipment Design and Manufacturing 3.23 The Joint FS Comments imply that the FSS proposal to use the xKu portion of the 11

GHz band for DTH will disrupt the orderly design of equipment by the manufacturing industry or the FS community’s ability to procure equipment. It states:

Manufacturers base the efficient design of their radio equipment on the specific characteristics of the spectrum allocated and commit developmental resources on the basis of the regulatory certainty provided by Industry Canada’s spectrum policies.33

3.24 This point was dealt with in Telesat’s Comments.34 The “soft segmentation” of the 11

GHz band proposed by the FSS industry and broadcasters will not change Industry Canada’s technical requirements or specifications for radio equipment. It simply re-allocates 50 percent (500 MHz) of the 11 GHz band for priority use by satellite services. As a result, the equipment used by FS licensees will continue to be readily available on the market and can continue to be manufactured in accordance with the FCC’s channel plan and technical specifications for use in the 500 MHz of the 11 GHz band that would remain allocated for FS use.

33 Joint FS Comments, 1st page, 3rd paragraph. 34 Telesat Comments, s. 11.05

12

3.25 Telesat’s views on this point are corroborated in Appendix 2 to these Reply Comments, a letter prepared by Advantech, a well-respected Canadian satellite and microwave manufacturing company. Advantech’s letter indicates, in part, that:

Satellite and/or terrestrial products can be produced in all of the standard frequency bands for both FS and FSS applications. Advantech’s interest in this debate is to encourage the growth and ease of deployment for both satellite and terrestrial networks. In this regard, having dedicated DTH spectrum in this extended Ku-Band is reasonable and logical. Clearly, it is advantageous to the DTH satellite industry, but Advantech believes that the impact to the FS community is limited and manageable.

3.26 Telesat notes that Advantech’s letter comments that the 6 GHz bands are likely better suited for high-capacity trunks, a matter dealt with in the following sections of these Reply Comments.

There Will Be No Void in the Spectrum Available for Mid-Range Microwave

3.27 The Comments of several FS users state or imply that the effect of the FSS proposal would be to require FS users to vacate half of the 11 GHz band so it can be used for DTH purposes, and to share the other half in such as way as to render it unusable to FS users. For example, the Joint FS Comments state:

Like the 15 GHz band, the 11 GHz band is an ideal choice for short and mid-range link distances and for medium and high capacity links. A number of high frequency bands are available for shorter links and a number of low frequencies are available for longer links. Restricting the use of the 11 GHz and 15 GHz bands by fixed services will create a void in the options that are available to mobile service providers as they build and enhance their networks.35 [Emphasis added]

The Rogers Comments use similar language:

13. If adopted, the Department’s proposals will have the effect of creating a void in the microwave options that are available to wireless service providers for mid-range, medium and high capacity back-haul links. [Emphasis added.]

3.28 These Comments grossly overstate the impact of the FSS proposal to use the xKu band

for DTH purposes. Under the FSS proposal, the Allotment band – 500 MHz, or 50% of the 11 GHz band – will continue to be available to FS users on a priority basis. While Telesat has proposed that the MSS feeder links would continue to be granted a co-primary status in the Allotment band, this will have a negligible impact on the use of the band by FS users. As indicated in the Telesat Comments, the MSS gateways use large antennas with good discrimination against terrestrial interference. Site-by-site coordination of MSS gateways will have very little impact on FS users, since there are only four such gateways in Canada, two located in rural areas shielded from interference

35 Joint FS Comments, 3rd page.

13

by local terrain.36

3.29 The Department’s proposal regarding the 15 GHz band, if implemented, would still leave 360 MHz available in a similar mid-range band to the 11 GHz band. Additional spectrum for mid-range microwave uses is available in the 10 GHz band, the 11 GHz Allotment band and the 12 GHz VHCM band. There will clearly be no void in the spectrum available for mid-range microwave applications.

3.30 Moreover, as described in the Lemay-Yates report appended to our Reply Comments, even assuming the FS users would lose access to part of the 15 GHz band and the xKu band, they currently have 25% more spectrum allocated for FS use in Canada than available to users in the U.S.A which is 10 times our size in population and mobile and mobile traffic. This suggests that Canada does not make very efficient use of the spectrum.

Reply to TeraGo Comments

3.31 The TeraGo Comments oppose the FSS proposal on the grounds that it would prevent TeraGo from using half of the 11 GHz band (the xKu portion)37 and that there would be a limited number of other alternative bands available.38

3.32 In reply, Telesat notes that the Lemay-Yates report appended to its Comments indicates that only 30% of TeraGo’s transmitters in the 11 GHz band are located in the xKu portion of the band, with the remaining 70% located in the Allotment portion.39

3.33 The Lemay-Yates report indicates that alternatives are available for all FS users, including TeraGo. TeraGo will continue to have full access to the Allotment portion of the 11 GHz band, and with only 30 transmitters – 15 links – to retune or relocate to other bands, a variety of options are available to the company. Based on link distance, likely 80% or more of the TeraGo systems could be accommodated in the 15 and 18 GHz ranges instead – see Figure 5 of the Lemay-Yates supplemental report (see Appendix 1).

3.34 Since its business model is based on providing data connectivity in major urban centres, TeraGo has access to a significant number of fibre and other wireline options for backhaul, available from incumbent local exchange carriers and from competitive access providers. For last mile access, short haul bands, such as the 24 and 38 GHz bands would be the preferred solution.

3.35 Fibre should be an increasingly attractive option, particularly in urban settings, given its higher reliability and capacity, as well as the need to conserve limited Canadian spectrum resources for applications like DTH, where there are no suitable wireline alternatives. To this end, Telesat has researched the availability of fibre network options

36 Telesat Comments, s. 13.04; see also footnote 18. 37 TeraGo Comments, paragraph A. 38 TeraGo Comments, paragraph B. 39 See Table 1 of the Lemay-Yates report.

14

in the Vancouver area. TELU.S. and Bell have confirmed that fibre optic links are available at the exact locations where TeraGo originates and terminates all of its links. The carriers confirmed this by performing facility checks using the standard process applied for fibre applications at DS3 rates or greater. They confirmed that the forward and return microwave links at the following TeraGo transmitter site locations could be replaced immediately by fibre facilities:

• Customer Premise, 604220, VANCBC03, VANCOUVER BC - 555 WEST HASTINGS V6B4N6/604220 , VANCOUVER, BC, CA

• Customer Premise, 604202, NWMRBC01, DELTA BC - 731 BELGRAVE

WAY V3M5R8 /604202, NEWWTMNSTR, BC, CA • Customer Premise, 604220, VANCBC03, VANCOUVER BC - 555 WEST

HASTINGS V6B4N6/604220 , VANCOUVER, BC, CA • Customer Premise, 604202, NWMRBC01, DELTA BC - 731 BELGRAVE

WAY V3M5R8 /604202 , NEWWTMNSTR, BC, CA • Customer Premise, 604205, BNBYBC01, BURNABY BC - 3920 E

HASTINGS V5C6C1/604205, VANCOUVER, BC, CA

4. There are Good Reasons for Not Harmonizing xKu Band Use with the United States

4.01 The Comments of FS users suggest that the use of the xKu band for DTH in Canada could be problematic because there is currently no such use in the United States. For example, the Joint FS Response makes the following point:

Clearly, the U.S. FCC has determined that the 11 GHz band is an important band for microwave backhaul systems and has taken steps to maintain the ongoing use of this band by fixed services. The Fixed Service Providers respectfully urge the Department to maintain the current spectrum utilization policy and harmonize the use of the 11 GHz band with the U.S..40

4.02 In reply, Telesat submits that the Department is charged with setting policy that best

meets Canadian policy objectives and responds to the different realities of Canadian communications markets. The Department should not abrogate its responsibilities and merely follow FCC policies designed for the U.S. market. Adherence to FCC spectrum utilization policies is not only unnecessary, but unwarranted and unwise in the use of the xKu band. In this context, the following points must be kept in mind.

4.03 First, there are important differences between Canadian and U.S. usage of the Ku band that support use of the adjacent xKu band for DTH purposes in Canada. The Canadian approach to satellite broadcasting distribution is considerably more efficient for use in

40 Joint FS Comments, last paragraph in response to question 1(a) in the Consultation Paper.

15

Canada – which has a much smaller market over which to recover satellite distribution costs. In the United States, the 12 GHz BSS (DBS) band is used for DTH purposes (with some supplemental use of the Ku and Ka FSS bands), but the C band is used to deliver the same broadcasting signals to cable head ends. This results in a “duplicate” delivery system, one in which the same broadcast signals are carried on both DBS and C-band satellites.

4.04 In Canada, the same Ku-band satellite platform delivers programming to Shaw Direct’s 900,000 DTH subscribers and to most Canadian cable subscribers, particularly the estimated 4.5 million subscribers served by the 400 BDUs in 2,000 Canadian communities that receive broadcast television signals from SBS. This ‘dual purpose’ use of Ku-band downlinks provides a very efficient means of delivering Canadian broadcast programming across the country – far more efficient than the U.S. distribution approach. The problem with the Canadian approach is that there is currently no additional Ku-band capacity available. Thus, expansion of DTH use into the xKu band provides a practical means of retaining an important efficiency of the Canadian system, which enables cost-effective delivery of advanced broadcasting services to remote and rural areas.

4.05 A second point must be kept in mind in comparing Canadian and U.S. policies on use of the xKu band. The 11 GHz band is far more intensively used in the United States than it is in Canada.41 Under the FSS proposal, FS users in Canada will retain access to 500 MHz of spectrum in the 11 GHz band, 360 MHz in the 15 GHz band, and adequate capacity in the other bands described in the Lemay-Yates report.

4.06 In fact, with one-tenth the population and a much smaller economy than the United States, there should be ample spectrum available in Canada for terrestrial microwave purposes so that Canada can use the xKu portion of the 11 GHz band for DTH expansion. In reply to the suggestion in the Joint FS Comments that Canadian policy for xKu band use should be harmonized with U.S. policy for the band, Telesat requested Lemay-Yates to analyze the spectrum available for FS use in the United States, compared to Canada. This analysis is set out in Part 5 of Lemay-Yates supplemental report, attached as Appendix 1.

4.07 As illustrated in Part 5 of this supplemental report, there is, in fact, 25% more capacity potentially available for fixed service use in Canada than there is in the United States –even assuming the Industry Canada proposals to move FS out of the xKu bands and part of the 15 GHz band are implemented. This appears to be due to greater government and military usage in the United States compared to Canada of spectrum in the 7 GHz, 8 GHz and 15 GHz ranges. Moreover, 35% of the capacity allocated for fixed service use in Canada is “mid-range” spectrum (below 18 GHz) compared to 30% in the U.S. This is prime spectrum for FS links, since upper range spectrum is more difficult to use due to short link distances, susceptibility to rain fading and other interference considerations.

4.08 Thus, it appears that while the Canadian FS spectrum requirements should be smaller

41 The TAFL database shows 1126 licensed transmitters within 400 km of the Canadian border in the 11.45 – 11.7 GHz band segment, alone.

16

than those in the United States, considerably more good-quality spectrum is available for FS use in Canada. The obvious conclusion is that the FSS proposal, to segment the xKu band evenly between FS and FSS use, will leave more than adequate spectrum available for FS users if they manage their spectrum use efficiently.

4.09 Finally, Telesat notes that the FSS proposal would retain partial harmonization with FCC policies for use of the 11 GHz band, since 50% of the 11 GHz band (the Allotment band) will remain available to FS users on a priority basis.

5. Reply to SkyTerra and TerraStar Comments

5.01 The following sections reply to the Comments filed by SkyTerra and TerraStar (the “MSS Companies”). Telesat agrees with the Comments of the MSS Companies that the provisions of Ap 30B of the ITU Radio Regulations make the Allotment band (10.7 -10.95 and 11.2 – 11.45 GHz) unattractive for DTH purposes.42 We further concur that the previously authorized use of the Allotment band for the MSS Companies’ MSS feeder links at the 107.3W and 111.1W orbital locations would preclude re-use of this spectrum at these orbital locations for DTH purposes. Telesat does not propose to provide DTH services within the Allotment band.

5.02 The MSS Companies note that the co-existence of small DTH FSS terminals and fixed sites would be difficult to coordinate.43 Telesat agrees. Coordination would be impossible, due to the ubiquitous and time-varying locations of DTH antennas. This is why Telesat proposes a soft segmentation approach. Again, Telesat does not propose that DTH services be provided within the Allotment band.

5.03 In their Comments, the MSS Companies raise a new request for the first time in this proceeding, namely that the entire 11 GHz band (10.7 – 11.7 GHz) be allocated for the exclusive use of FSS.44 To be clear, this request is not consistent with Telesat’s position or the FSS proposals. Telesat believes that only the xKu portion of the 11 GHz band should be allocated exclusively for FSS use.

5.04 Telesat believes that with suitable protection measures for MSS gateways operating in accordance with footnote C16C, the Allotment band can be used by the FS users (who will have exclusive access to the band in the vast majority of Canadian territory) and by the MSS Companies, who will require a small number of earth stations for MSS feeder links at known locations. Telesat disagrees that coordination between FS users and MSS feeder links would be “administratively unworkable”. It has worked well to date, and there is no reason to believe successful co-ordination will not continue.

5.05 On another point, the MSS Companies note that a Telesat DTH satellite operating in the xKu band would be collocated with the MSS Companies’ satellites operating in the adjacent Allotment band, and they highlight the need to coordinate out-of-band

42 MSS Comments, response to Q 1a of the Consultation Paper. 43 MSS Comments, response to Q 1b of the Consultation Paper. 44 MSS Comments, response to Q 1b of the Consultation Paper.

17

interference between the two systems. Telesat agrees that such coordination is required, and in fact preliminary coordination discussions on this issue with one of the MSS Companies have already begun.

5.06 Telesat believes that this co-ordination will be successfully completed without undue problems or delays. In this regard, Telesat notes that adjacent band interference would be mitigated by the following factors: guardbands at the band edge of both systems, spectral roll-off of the desired signals, and satellite OMUX filtering. Furthermore, the MSS Companies’ satellites are designed to operate with significant inclination and large-aperture feeder-link earth station antennas. Hence earth station antenna discrimination would be a significant additional mitigating factor for all but a small portion of each 24 hour period.

5.07 It should be noted that the need for such adjacent band coordination exists independent of the outcome of this consultation process, since such coordination between service providers with collocated satellites would be required no matter what traffic is carried on the collocated satellites. For example, under its current xKu-band authorizations at 107.3°W and 111.1°W, Telesat could carry saturating non-DTH video traffic with technical characteristics identical to those proposed for the Shaw DTH service.

5.08 The Comments of the MSS Companies also note that there is a requirement to prevent physical interference between the MSS and xKu band satellites that will be collocated. Telesat agrees. Telesat also agrees with the MSS Companies that the coordination task is facilitated when a common satellite controller (Telesat in this case) handles both satellites. Telesat further notes that nominally collocated satellites are very common in the industry,45 both with common and different satellite controllers, and that the industry has a good track record of effective coordination to prevent physical interference problems.

6. Status of the Industry Canada Consultation Process

6.01 The Joint FS Comments46 make a rather curious argument about the status of the DGTP-003-08 consultation process. They state:

As noted in section 2.1 of the Consultation Paper, a major spectrum sharing review was conducted in the 3-30 GHz range. At that time, it was concluded that sharing of the 11 GHz band between the fixed service and FSS was possible on a co-coordinated basis. … The Fixed Service Providers fully support this policy and we respectfully request that the Department continue to manage the band on this basis. We do not support the proposal to displace fixed service systems from the extended-Ku bands or to designate these bands for the exclusive use of FSS for DTH services.

45 For example, at the 101ºW orbital location, the FCC has licensed multiple satellites operating in the FSS, BSS and MSS. 46 Joint FS Comments, 3rd page

18

From our perspective, there has not been any additional formal review that would lead us to a different conclusion. We note that this proceeding is to seek comments on a “request to use the extended Ku spectrum bands for DTH broadcasting services” and hence does not constitute a formal review. [italics added.]

6.02 While the point of this argument is not very clear, it seems to imply that since DGTP-

003-08 consultation process is not a ‘formal review’ it could not lead to a change in Industry Canada’s spectrum utilization policies. Specifically, the FS Comments seem to imply that the Department would not be able to change the SP 3-30 GHz policy based on the record of this consideration.47 If that is the FS users’ argument, then this argument is clearly spurious. It would seem to be aimed only at creating further delays in the event that Industry Canada agrees with the FSS proposals for use of the xKu band.

6.03 The Consultation Paper and the formal process that launched it, including the Canada Gazette Notice, and the moratorium on licensing in the xKu band, clearly provide notice to all parties that the Department has launched a formal review of the SP 3-30 GHz spectrum utilization policy as it relates to the xKu band. In this regard, the two paragraphs of the Consultation Paper state:

As announced in Canada Gazette Notice DGTP-003-08, Industry Canada is releasing this consultation paper to seek comments on a request to use the extended-Ku spectrum bands (10.95-11.2 GHz and 11.45-11.7 GHz) for Direct-to-Home (DTH) satellite broadcasting services in Canada which, if granted, would require amending the existing policy governing the use of the band. A spectrum advisory bulletin (SAB-001-08) has been issued announcing a temporary moratorium on licensing in the bands 10.95-11.2 GHz and 11.45-11.7 GHz while the Department is assessing possible policy amendments to the extended-Ku bands.

6.04 The Consultation Paper then goes on to describe the relevant provisions of the SP 3-30

GHz policy related to the xKu band, and other background matters. The paper concludes with a set of specific questions that also make it clear that the Department may change its spectrum utilization policy. For example, the first question states:

1. (a) The Department seeks comments as to whether the spectrum utilization policy of the Ku frequency band 10.7-11.7 GHz should be changed to accommodate the provisioning of DTH services and, if so, what the designated use for each of the sub-bands should be.

6.05 Accordingly, if Industry Canada should accept the FSS proposals to use of the xKu band, the Department should immediately announce and implement the changes to the

47 In particular, Spectrum Utilization Policy (SP 3-30 GHz) – Revisions to Spectrum Utilization Policies in the 3-30 GHz Frequency Range and Further Consultation (http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf05617.html).

19

SP 3-30 GHz policy, without further proceedings. The suggestion that any further proceedings, consultations or reviews are required would only serve to delay the benefits of expanding DTH and broadcast distribution satellite capacity in Canada.

6.06 In this regard, Telesat’s Comments suggested that there should be a three-year transition period for the implementation of the new spectrum utilization policies for the xKu band. That will provide adequate time for the FS users currently in the band to make an orderly transition to other bands or to other transmission media such as wireline networks.

6.07 If required, the three-year transition period can also be used by the Department to develop any related or consequential policy and regulatory changes. However, it is critically important that the Department should not delay the commencement of the three year transition period, pending further reviews, consultations or other proceedings. The resulting uncertainty would delay or prevent commencement of work on the design and procurement of an xKu-band satellite for DTH purposes.

6.08 As Shaw’s initial Comments have disclosed, Telesat and Shaw have entered into an agreement for the construction, launch and operation of a new xKu-band satellite. With this agreement in hand, Telesat stands ready to move forward immediately to contract for, design and launch a new satellite as soon as the Department clarifies its spectrum utilization policies regarding the use of the xKu band.

7. Conclusion

7.01 Telesat submits that Industry Canada should act expeditiously to change its spectrum policies to permit the xKu band to be used primarily for DTH purposes. The specific changes proposed by Telesat are spelled out in detail in its Comments. In summary:

• The 10.95-11.2 GHz and 11.45-11.7 GHz (xKu) portions of the 10.7-11.7 GHz band should be designated for priority use by the FSS to support provisioning of DTH and broadcast signal delivery services.

• The FS should have priority over the FSS in the other portions of the 10.7-11.7 GHz band, namely 10.7-10.95 GHz and 11.2-11.45 GHz. Use of the FSS in these bands would be limited to applications that pose minimal constraints on the deployment of the FS. Feeder links to the MSS would fall in this latter category and would not be subject to any additional constraints.

• This revised policy for the 10.7-11.7 GHz band should be established on a general and permanent basis. The operation of FS systems utilizing the xKu band should terminate within three years after issuance of this revised policy. Until then, any uncoordinated FSS deployment in these bands would receive no protection from FS transmitters licensed prior to 2009 (i.e. before the moratorium established by Industry Canada).

7.02 No parties in this consultation process have disputed that Shaw Direct has a critical need to add DTH capacity in the near term. None have pointed to a viable alternative solution

20

to meet this need, other than use of the xKu band. None have provided any data that demonstrates that existing FS users in the xKu band do not have suitable transmission alternatives.

7.03 Timely addition of DTH capacity in Shaw’s orbital neighbourhood will advance important Canadian public policy objectives. Expeditious approval of the proposed changes will permit Telesat to invest immediately in a new xKu-band satellite. By enabling vigorous multi-channel video competition, driving down costs for consumers, broadcasters, and content providers, this investment will further stimulate economic activity in all regions of the country. Thus, a timely implementation of the proposed changes will advance Canadian economic policy as well as its communications policies. Any delay in implementing the proposal will put expansion of Canadian DTH capacity and the related investment at risk.

Appendix 1 Supplemental Report of Lemay-Yates Associates Inc.

Extended-Ku Band:

Options for Fixed Service Licensees

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT DGTP-003-08 – Reply Comments

Report presented to

TELESAT CANADA

May 25, 2009

1200 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West, Suite 7F, Montreal QC H3A 0A1 / 514-288-6555 / [email protected] www.LYA.com

Lemay-Yates Associates Inc. Supplemental Report – DGTP-003-08 Page 2

Table of contents

1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 4

2. CASE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY............................................................................................. 7

3. MARKET-BY-MARKET ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 10 3.1 TORONTO ................................................................................................................................... 11 3.2 MONTREAL ................................................................................................................................ 14 3.3 VANCOUVER .............................................................................................................................. 18 3.4 OTTAWA .................................................................................................................................... 22

4. CASE STUDY SUMMARY RESULTS.......................................................................................... 25 4.1 ALTERNATIVES BASED ON RE-TUNING ....................................................................................... 25 4.2 ALTERNATIVES IN OTHER BANDS BASED ON LINK DISTANCES .................................................... 26 4.3 ALTERNATIVE FIBRE ROUTES ..................................................................................................... 28

5. FIXED MICROWAVE SERVICE BANDS – CANADA COMPARED TO THE US................ 31

6. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................... 33


Table of Tables

Table 1 – Upper and Lower 11 GHz Band Transmitters by Licensee................................ 5 Table 2 – Summary of links included in the case studies ................................................. 11 Table 3 – Breakdown of 11 GHz transmitters in the Toronto market .............................. 11 Table 4 – Toronto-Telus upper band transmitters relative to all lower band transmitters 12 Table 5 – Telus-Toronto link capacity relative to lower band capacity ........................... 13 Table 6 – Telus-Toronto 11 GHz link length compared to other bands ........................... 14 Table 7 – Breakdown of 11 GHz transmitters in the Montreal market ............................ 15 Table 8 – Montreal – Terago upper band transmitters relative to all lower band transmitters........................................................................................................................ 16 Table 9 – Terago-Montreal link capacity relative to lower band capacity ....................... 17 Table 10 – Terago-Montreal 11 GHz link length compared to other bands..................... 18 Table 11 – Breakdown of 11 GHz transmitters in the Vancouver market........................ 18 Table 12 – Vancouver – BC Hydro upper band transmitters relative to all lower band transmitters........................................................................................................................ 20 Table 13 – BC Hydro-Vancouver link capacity relative to lower band capacity ............. 20 Table 14 – Vancouver – Terago upper band transmitters relative to all lower band transmitters........................................................................................................................ 21 Table 15 – BC Hydro-Vancouver 11 GHz link length compared to other bands............. 22 Table 16 – Breakdown of 11 GHz transmitters in the Ottawa market.............................. 22 Table 17 – Ottawa-Bell upper band transmitters relative to all lower band transmitters . 24 Table 18 – Bell-Ottawa link capacity relative to lower band capacity ............................. 24 Table 19 – Case study results – re-tuning vs. alternatives................................................ 25 Table 20 – Case study results – Distribution of alternatives ............................................ 27 Table 21 – US vs. Canada allocation of FS by band ........................................................ 32

Table of Figures

Figure 1 – Telus-Toronto deployment – geographic breakdown...................................... 12 Figure 2 – Terago-Montreal deployment – geographic breakdown ................................. 16 Figure 3 – BCHydro-Vancouver deployment – geographic breakdown .......................... 19 Figure 4 – Bell-Ottawa deployment – geographic breakdown ......................................... 23 Figure 5 – Terago link distance distribution compared to Canadian averages ................. 28 Figure 6 – Vancouver area – XKu links in parallel with fibre.......................................... 30


1. Introduction This Supplemental Report was prepared by Lemay-Yates Associates Inc. (LYA) for Telesat

Canada to assist it in replying to certain comments filed in Industry Canada’s “Consultation

on the Possible Use of the Extended-Ku Spectrum Bands for Direct-to-Home (DTH) Satellite

Broadcasting Services” (Gazette Notice DGTP-003-08).

In particular, the information provided in this supplemental report responds to the comments

of fixed service (FS) users that displacement of their transmitters from the Extended Ku band

will create a “void” in the microwave options available to wireless service providers1, and

that if incumbent FS systems are displaced from the Extended Ku bands, alternative

spectrum for the migration of these fixed links would need to be identified.2

The information and analysis provided in this supplemental report provide further detail from

the case studies summarized in Section 4 of the Report “Extended-Ku Band: Options for

Fixed Service Licensees” (filed as Appendix 6 to Telesat’s DGTP-003-08 comments of April

17, 2009) – the “Lemay-Yates Report” – and should assist in assessing other suggestions

made in the FS users’ comments that spectrum available to them is congested and that there

are few suitable alternatives to the Extended Ku spectrum.

There are over 1,500 transmitters deployed across Canada in the 11 GHz range.3 Of these,

425 are in the “upper portion”, i.e. 10.95-11.20 GHz paired with 11.45-11.70 GHz that is

referred to as the “Extended-Ku” or “XKu” spectrum.4

1 For example, Rogers Comments, paragraph 13. 2 FS Joint Response, pages 8 and 9. 3 Based on Industry Canada TAFL information, December 2008 4 The “11 GHz band” refers to the frequency range 10.7-11.7 GHz. Within the 11 GHz band, the term “upper band” refers to the portion that the satellite industry refers to as the Extended-Ku (XKu) band, meaning the range of 10.95-11.2 GHz paired with 11.45-11.7 GHz. The “lower band” refers to the portion that the satellite industry refers to as the Ap30B allotment portion, i.e. the range of 10.7-10.95 GHz paired with 11.2-11.45 GHz.


This is summarized below using Industry Canada data from December 2008. This

information was used as input to the case studies discussed in this report.

Table 1 – Upper and Lower 11 GHz Band Transmitters by Licensee

10.70 - 10.95 GHz

10.95 - 11.20 GHz

11.20 - 11.45 GHz

11.45 - 11.70 GHz 11 GHz

Rogers 249 33 249 33 564 Telus 97 38 94 40 269 Bell* 52 55 52 58 217 TeraGo 35 15 35 15 100 BC Hydro 17 22 18 22 79 Navigata 16 14 16 14 60 MTS Allstream 14 4 14 4 36 TBayTel 14 1 14 1 30 RM of Wood 14 - 14 - 28 Shaw - 10 - 18 28 Top 10 Licensees 508 192 506 205 1,411 Other 45 14 45 14 118 Total 553 206 551 219 1,529 © Lemay-Yates Associates Inc., 2009* Including Northwestel & Bell Aliant

It should be kept in mind that the number of transmitters in use changes over time as old

links are retired and new links are added. If the same table as above were to be compiled in

May 2009, instead of a total of 1,529 transmitters in the 11 GHz range, there would be 2,234

transmitters due to growth in the lower sub-bands.5 Similarly, going back in time, the same

table in September 2007 would have yielded 966 transmitters in the 11 GHz range in total.

The FS transmitters using XKu spectrum are spread across Canada with more significant

concentrations in Southern Ontario and Southern BC. The case study analysis considered the

most congested areas in order to assess what relocation options might exist. Based on that

analysis, we have concluded conservatively that a substantial majority of the 11 GHz links

located in the Extended Ku bands 10.95-11.2 GHz and 11.45-11.7 GHz can be

accommodated in the allotment bands (i.e. the “lower portion” of the 11 GHz band).

5 Including pending authorizations, per Industry Canada TAFL data, May 21, 2009


Furthermore, other bands are available and should be considered as alternatives for XKu

band users, specifically for long-haul, short-haul and access links in order to make more

efficient use of spectrum resources going forward. If more appropriate bands and

technologies, such as fibre, are considered and deployed, it will relieve the pressure that FS

users claim exists in the 11 GHz band and still support future growth in the 10.7-10.95 and

11.2-11.45 GHz bands.

As a separate matter, we were asked by Telesat Canada to provide some data to reply to the

comments of the Joint FS users that Industry Canada should “harmonize the uses of the 11

GHz band with the U.S.” In Section 5 of this supplementary report, we provide data that

indicates that Canadian FS users have access to considerably more alternative spectrum in

the desirably “mid-range” frequency bands than the much larger U.S. FS user community.


2. Case analysis methodology

The top six market areas – Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa –

account for about one third of the 425 XKu band FS transmitters deployed across Canada.6

Considering that the top six areas are the most congested in general for spectrum, the

options for retuning or displacement in those six markets would be the most challenging.

While the top markets do not represent the majority of the links in service, they do represent

the areas where it should be most difficult to implement alternative arrangements for

existing XKu band transmitters. For the two thirds of the transmitters that are spread across

the rest of Canada, the technical options would be expected to be the same as in the largest

markets, but alternative microwave radio solutions such as retuning to the lower sub-band

would be more readily available and considerably easier to implement. This is so because

the number of links in those bands are fewer and the density of their deployment is far

lower.

To assess the options for 11 GHz licensees, case studies were undertaken looking at the

largest markets by considering the deployment of 11 GHz links within the geographic area

surrounding each link. To define each market, a 50km-60km radius around the core urban

area was considered. There are no XKu FS links present within a 50km-60km radius around

the core of Calgary and Edmonton. Thus those cities were dropped from the case analysis

and only four markets were considered – Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and Ottawa.

Within each geographic market, the approach was to first identify all of the transmitters

within each of the upper and lower band portions of the 11 GHz band.

6 Based on Industry Canada TAFL data of December 2008


In each market, the analysis focused on the most significant licensee in the upper band – i.e.

the one with the most transmitters in service. The deployment of this licensee was compared

to the total lower band deployment for the same area in order to assess whether the upper

band links can be reasonably accommodated in the lower band portion based on channel

availability.

Since 11 GHz links in these areas are typically in the 10-12 km range in terms of link

length, the 50-60 km radius around each market was then further subdivided.

For example, because of the distance between them, a link that starts and finishes north of

Whitby, Ontario can be analyzed independently of a link that starts and finishes in

Burlington, Ontario even though both are located within a 60 km radius around Toronto.

Therefore the geography of each market was subdivided into large enough pieces so the

links can be analyzed independently in each area.7

While there are many options available for licensees, the simplest solution to free up the

upper band portion is to maintain the same channel plan for the band, and “fit” the upper

band channels into the lower band (i.e. with the same channel size and separation).

In this way, systems can be retuned from the upper to the lower band with no impact on

other licensees. Of course moving the channels to the lower band reduces the total

bandwidth available for future growth in the lower band. In some cases, this is not important

since the lower band is not heavily utilized to begin with, but in other cases the lower band

would become filled due to this retuning. In the latter case, either another relocation option

could be considered for the upper band licensee.

7 This is the case for typical link lengths, but any change to links would require the usual engineering analysis and coordination with other licensees operating in the region.


Other microwave options are considered primarily on the basis of whether the 11 GHz link

length could be accommodated by the other bands.

In this supplementary report, the assessment of “fit” of 11 GHz links with other bands is

limited to consideration of available channel capacity and link distance. The conclusions

from the case analyses do not supplant the usual technical analysis and routine coordination

activities that licensees engage in and do on a regular basis prior to changing frequency

assignments or applying for licenses. Frequency coordination would also involve

participation by the other radio licensees to assess the impact of new frequency assignments.

In particular before making any change to licensed systems, the licensee would have to

ensure lack of interference with other radio licensees within the relevant coordination zones.


3. Market-by-market analysis

The cases focus on the largest licensee in each of the largest market areas:

• Toronto – Telus accounts for 77% of the upper band transmitters in service, 36 out of

a total of 47.

• Montreal – Terago accounts for 82% of the upper band transmitters in service, 14 out

of a total of 17.

• Vancouver – There are relatively more licensees in Vancouver than elsewhere, with

BC Hydro being the one with the most links. BC Hydro accounts for 30% of the

upper band transmitters in service, with 15 out of a total of 50. Terago is the second

largest with 10 upper band transmitters or 20% of the total in the Vancouver area.

The case for Vancouver considers primarily BC Hydro but also with a sub-case

focusing on Terago, whose 5 links are all in the core urban area.

• Ottawa – There are very few links in the Ottawa area, only 7 in total (14

transmitters). The largest licensee is Bell Canada with 5 links representing 71% of

the transmitters.

The case studies cover 85 transmitters out of 425 in service, representing 20% of all of

the 11 GHz upper band transmitters in Canada, as summarized below.


Table 2 – Summary of links included in the case studies

Upper band Case studycase analysis 10950-11200 11450-11700 10950-11200 11450-11700 % of total

Toronto Telus 17 19 22 25 77%Montreal Terago 7 7 9 8 82%Vancouver (1) BC Hydro 7 8 22 28 30%Vancouver (2) Terago 5 5 n/a n/a 20%Ottawa Bell Canada 5 5 7 7 n/aCanada total n/a 41 44 219 206 20%© Lemay-Yates Associates Inc., 2009 % in major markets 27% 33%

Transmitters in case studies Total transmitters

The following sections present the cases in more detail.

3.1 Toronto

Considering a 60 km radius around Toronto, there are 145 of the 11 GHz transmitters in

service, with 47 operating in the upper portion. The breakdown of the 11 GHz transmitters

by licensee is summarized below.

Table 3 – Breakdown of 11 GHz transmitters in the Toronto market

10.70 - 10.95 GHz

10.95 - 11.20 GHz

11.20 - 11.45 GHz

11.45 - 11.70 GHz Total

TeraGo 25 2 25 2 54 Telus 2 17 2 19 40 Bell 11 3 14 4 32 Rogers 9 - 10 - 19 Total 47 22 51 25 145 © Lemay-Yates Associates Inc., 2009

Telus is the most significant licensee in the upper band portion of 11 GHz in Toronto with

77% of the transmitters that have been deployed – 36 out of 47, nineteen in the 11.45-11.7

GHz range and seventeen in the 10.95-11.2 GHz range. The case study for Toronto thus


focuses on alternatives for Telus. Telus’ transmitters in Toronto are spread across the region.

The geographic breakdown is shown in the figure below.

Figure 1 – Telus-Toronto deployment – geographic breakdown

Golden Horseshoe - North (GHN), including Richmond Hill, Newmarket, areas South of Lake Simcoe

(Telus 12 transmitters)

Golden Horseshoe - East (GHE), including Scarborough, Pickering, Ajax, Whitby

(Telus 9 transmitters)Toronto (TOR) - core

urban area(Telus 7 transmitters)

Golden Horseshoe - West (GHW), including Mississauga, Brampton,

Milton, Oakville, Burlington, Hamilton

(Telus 8 transmitters)

Hwy 407H

wy

427

Lake Ontario

DVP

23 Km

52 Km

76 Km

40 Km

The distribution of Telus’ transmitters around Toronto, outside the core area, indicates

coincident geography with one Telus lower band transmitter, 10 of Terago and 4 of Rogers.

Table 4 – Toronto-Telus upper band transmitters relative to all lower band transmitters

10950-11200 11450-11700 10700-10950 11200-11450 Telus Terago Rogers NoteGHN 5 7 8 9 1 0 0 Telus can retune on itselfGHE 6 3 8 11 0 4 0 Terago Pickering = 2, Ajax/Whitby = 2GHW 3 5 19 19 0 6 4 Terago Miss = 6, Rogers Ham/Bur = 1, Rogers Bram = 3TOR 3 4 12 12 n/a n/a n/a Use wireline/fiber alternativeTotal 17 19 47 51 1 10 4Note: TOR refers to geography for Toronto bounded by Hwy 427 in west to Don Valley Parkway in east and from lakeshore to Hwy 407 in north

GHE is Golden Horseshoe east of Don Valley Parkway, GHW is west of Hwy 427 and GHN is north of Hwy 407

Telus All licensees Lower band links in coincidentUpper band transmitters Lower band transmitters geography with Telus upper band

Industry Canada manages licensing for 11 GHz links in each of its Regional Offices. To the

extent possible, subject to compatibility with existing stations, Industry Canada often assigns

the same channel to a particular licensee for use on multiple sites. Thus the number of


transmitters in service overstates the actual spectrum capacity being used, since more than

one transmitter makes use of the same channel assignment. This approach to assignment

does not necessarily result in the most efficient assignment of channels, but does somewhat

simplify operations and maintenance for the licensees. In other words, channels may be

assigned in one portion of the band for operational convenience and not because of

congestion in another part of the band or other technical reasons.

The total capacity – i.e. based on the different channels used by Telus in Toronto – that

would have to be retuned by Telus ranges from 30 MHz to 70 MHz depending on the region.

This is summarized below showing the % fill that would result if the links were retuned to

the lower band portion (as a % of the 250 MHz available in total in the lower band portion).

Table 5 – Telus-Toronto link capacity relative to lower band capacity

10950-11200 11450-11700GHN 5 7 70 160 2*10MHZ , 8*30MHz , 2*30MHz 92%GHE 6 3 50 150 3*10MHZ , 2*10MHz , 4*30MHz 80%GHW 3 5 70 180 1*10MHZ , 5*30MHz , 2*30MHz 100%TOR 3 4 30 180 3*10MHZ , 2*10MHZ , 2*10MHZ 84%Total 17 19Note: TOR refers to geography for Toronto bounded by Hwy 427 in west to Don Valley Parkway in east and from lakeshore to Hwy 407 in north

GHE is Golden Horseshoe east of Don Valley Parkway, GHW is west of Hwy 427 and GHN is north of Hwy 407

TelusUpper band transmitters

Channels and MHz capacity to be retuned

Total MHz capacity used in the lower band

Total MHz capacity of Telus links in the

upper band% fill if all

retuned

Moving Telus into lower band channels that are not presently used would increase fill to

over 80% in all the areas.8 Thus, except in the GHW area, it appears the current usage of

channels can likely be accommodated, considering the other licensees have relatively small

needs. 8 “Fill” in the case studies is estimated considering the actual number of different channels used, since the same channel can be reused at different sites. For example, for the “TOR” core area of Toronto there are 20 lower band transmitters deployed, but they only use seven different paired channels – three of 40 MHz capacity and 4 of 30 MHz capacity. In addition two of the paired 30 MHz channels use a portion of the frequency range covered by the 40 MHz channels. Thus there is 240 MHz of paired throughput being used (3 x 40 MHz plus 4 x 30 MHz), but in usage of the range this represents 180 MHz. Since the lower portion has 250 MHz of paired capacity available in total, this means that the equivalent of 70 MHz could be moved from the upper portion to the lower portion, subject to engineering analysis and coordination with other licensees. Or if the objective is not to exceed 80% fill – e.g. to accommodate future needs – then the maximum would be 200 MHz paired, leaving only 20 MHz that could be added from retuning.


For the GHW area, fill would appear to be over 100% if all channels were to be retuned.

There could be some improvement on this since in fact in the GHW area, Telus uses a 10

MHz channel that overlaps in frequency with one of its 30 MHz channels. This may be due

to differing spatial characteristics – i.e. the two links point in different non-interfering

directions – or other considerations such as polarization, power levels, etc.

If this could be maintained on retuning, Telus would only need 60 MHz in GHW instead of

70 MHz (i.e. since 10 MHz already overlaps with one of the 30 MHz channels), and hence

all the capacity could fit into the lower band.

To avoid congestion, terrestrial fibre and other bands could be considered to replace Telus’

11 GHz transmitters. The Telus links are about 9 km long on average, but even shorter in the

more congested areas at 5 km. Assuming channel availability, and subject to engineering

analysis and coordination with other licensees, a number of these could be accommodated in

other bands, even the 18 GHz or 23 GHz bands.

Table 6 – Telus-Toronto 11 GHz link length compared to other bands

10950-11200 11450-11700 6 GHz 12.7 GHz 15 GHz 18 GHz 23 GHzGHN 5 7 14.29 9 12 1 - - GHE 6 3 6.85 9 9 6 2 - GHW 3 5 5.13 8 8 7 6 2 TOR 3 4 6.65 7 7 7 - - Telus total 17 19 8.91 33 36 21 8 2 Toronto total 22 25 10.02 32 4 492 470 653 Note: TOR refers to geography for Toronto bounded by Hwy 427 in west to Don Valley Parkway in east and from lakeshore to Hwy 407 in north

GHE is Golden Horseshoe east of Don Valley Parkway, GHW is west of Hwy 427 and Simcoe is north of Hwy 407

Average distance of Telus links in the

xKu Band

TelusUpper band transmitters

Number of transmitters that can be move to another band based on the average link distance of that band in Toronto

3.2 Montreal

Considering a 50 km radius around Montreal, there are 133 of the 11 GHz transmitters in

service, with 17 operating in the upper portion.


The breakdown of the 11 GHz transmitters by licensee is summarized below.

Table 7 – Breakdown of 11 GHz transmitters in the Montreal market 10.70 - 10.95

GHz10.95 - 11.20

GHz11.20 - 11.45

GHz11.45 - 11.70

GHz TotalRogers 53 1 53 - 107 TeraGo - 7 - 7 14 Telus 3 - 3 - 6 Bell - 1 1 1 3 Port de Montreal 1 - 1 - 2 CBC 1 - - - 1 Total 58 9 58 8 133 © Lemay-Yates Associates Inc., 2009

Terago is the most significant licensee in the upper band portion of 11 GHz in Montreal with

over 80% of the transmitters that have been deployed – 14 out of 17, seven in the 11.45-11.7

GHz range and seven in the 10.95-11.2 GHz range.

Terago’s transmitters in Montreal are largely in the core area, with some north of Montreal

and one south of Montreal. The geographic breakdown of Terago’s transmitters is shown in

the figure below.


Figure 2 – Terago-Montreal deployment – geographic breakdown

Island of Montreal west of Dorval (WEST)

(Terago 0 transmitters)Montreal core urban area - Island of Montreal east of

Dorval (MTL)(Terago 10 transmitters)

Montreal South Shore (SOUTH)

(Terago 1 transmitter)

Island of Laval (LAVAL)(Terago 2 transmitters)

Montreal North Shore (NORTH), including Terrebonne, Repentigny

(Terago 1 transmitter)

St. Laurence River

US border12

Km

35 K

m

10 K

m

30 K

m

80 Km

80 KM

The distribution of Terago’s transmitters around Montreal, outside the core area, indicates

coincident geography with ten of Rogers’ transmitters.

Table 8 – Montreal – Terago upper band transmitters relative to all lower band transmitters

10950-11200 11450-11700 10700-10950 11200-11450 Rogers NoteLAVAL 0 2 2 6 6 0 0 0MTL 6 4 25 15 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aWEST 0 0 4 11 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aSOUTH 0 1 17 18 3 0 0 0 Rogers - 3 BouchervilleNORTH 1 0 10 8 1 0 0 0 Rogers - 1 Ste-Marthe/St-EustacheTotal 7 7 58 58 10 0 0 0Note: MTL is Island of Montreal (east of Dorval), West is Island of Montreal west of Dorval

Laval is Laval, South is area south of Island of Montreal, North is area north and east of Laval

Lower band links in coincidentUpper band transmitters Lower band transmitters geography with Terago upper band

Terago All licensees

As noted above, Industry Canada often assigns the same channel to licensees for use at

multiple sites within the same general area. Considering this, the total capacity – i.e. based

on the different channels used by Terago in Montreal – that would have to be retuned by

Terago ranges from 40 MHz to 80 MHz depending on the region.


Table 9 – Terago-Montreal link capacity relative to lower band capacity

10950-11200 11450-11700LAVAL 0 2 40 90 2*40MHZ 52%MTL 6 4 80 165 8*40MHZ , 2*40MHZ 98%WEST 0 0 - 120 N/A 48%SOUTH 0 1 40 140 1*40MHZ 72%NORTH 1 0 40 60 1*40MHZ 40%Total 7 7Note: MTL is Island of Montreal (east of Dorval), West is Island of Montreal west of Dorval


TeragoUpper band transmitters

Channels and MHz capacity to be retuned% fill if all

retuned

Total MHz capacity used in the lower band

Total MHz capacity of Terago links in

the upper band

Other than in the core area, Terago’s transmitters can “fit” into unused lower band channels

increasing the lower band fill to the 40% to 70% range, subject to detailed engineering

analysis and coordination with other licensees. In the core area, retuning Terago, if

technically possible, would essentially result in the entire lower band portion being filled.

To avoid congestion in the core area, terrestrial fibre or other bands could be considered to

replace Terago’s 11 GHz transmitters.

The Terago links are about 9.5 km long on average. Assuming channel availability, these

links could likely be accommodated in the 6 GHz band or in the 12.7 GHz band, based on

typical link lengths in those bands and subject to technical assessment and coordination.


Table 10 – Terago-Montreal 11 GHz link length compared to other bands

10950-11200 11450-11700 6 GHz 12.7 GHz 15 GHz 18 GHz 23 GHzLAVAL 0 2 10.31 2 2 - - - MTL 6 4 8.93 10 10 6 - - WEST 0 0 N/A - - - - - SOUTH 0 1 10.38 1 1 - - - NORTH 1 0 12.28 1 1 - - - Terago total 7 7 9.47 14 14 6 - - Montreal total 9 8 10.60 56 151 364 257 335 Note: MTL is Island of Montreal (east of Dorval), West is Island of Montreal west of Dorval


Number of transmitters that can be move to another band based on the average link distance of that band in Montreal or in Canada for the 12.7

TeragoUpper band transmitters

Average distance of Terago links in the

xKu Band

3.3 Vancouver

Considering a 60 km radius around Vancouver, there are 101 of the 11 GHz transmitters in



Table 11 – Breakdown of 11 GHz transmitters in the Vancouver market

10.70 - 10.95 GHz10.95 - 11.20

GHz 11.20 - 11.45 GHz11.45 - 11.70

GHz TotalBC Hydro 7 7 8 8 30 TeraGo 3 5 3 5 16 Navigata 5 2 5 2 14 Rogers 6 - 6 - 12 Telus 1 1 5 3 10 Shaw - 2 - 5 7 BC Transit - 3 - 2 5 Persona - 1 - 2 3 Astral Media 1 - 1 - 2 Bell - 1 - 1 2 Total 23 22 28 28 101 © Lemay-Yates Associates Inc., 2009

There is relatively high activity in this band in Vancouver compared to the other major

markets. BC Hydro is the most significant licensee in the upper band portion of 11 GHz in


Vancouver with 30% of the transmitters that have been deployed – 15 out of 50, eight in the

11.45-11.7 GHz range and seven in the 10.95-11.2 GHz range.

BC Hydro’s transmitters in Vancouver are largely to the east of the core area. The

geographic breakdown of BC Hydro’s transmitters is shown in the figure below.

Figure 3 – BCHydro-Vancouver deployment – geographic breakdown

Vancouver (VAN) - core urban area including Surrey, Richmond, Delta, Burnaby

(BCHydro 3 transmitters)

Coquitlam (COQ) - including Burnaby Mtn, Port

Moody(BC Hydro 10 transmitters)

Langley (LANG)(BC Hydro 1 transmitter)

Nor th Vancouver (NVAN) - including W est Vancouver and areas north of

Vancouver(BC Hydro 1 transmitter)

Bowen Island (BOW)

Burrard Inlet

Strait of Georgia

US border

25 Km

12 K

m

35 Km 15 Km

6 Km

30 K

m

The distribution of BC Hydro’s transmitters around Vancouver shows that retuning would

imply cohabitation with eight of BC Hydro’s own lower band links along with 5 of Navigata,

1 of Terago and 4 of Rogers.


Table 12 – Vancouver – BC Hydro upper band transmitters relative to all lower band transmitters

10950-11200 11450-11700 10700-10950 11200-11450 BC Hydro Navigata Terago Rogers NoteVAN 3 0 15 10 3 0 1 3 BCH - 2 Burn, 1 Surrey, Terago - 1 Delta, Rogers - 1 Burn, 2 SurreyNVAN 0 1 2 7 1 5 0 1COQ 3 7 3 7 3 0 0 0 All BC HydroBOW 0 0 2 4 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aLANG 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 BC Hydro - retune one linkTotal 7 8 23 28 8 5 1 4Note: VAN refers to core areas of Vancouver - downtown, Surrey, Richmond, Delta, Burnaby

NVAN is North Vancouver, COQ includes Coquitlam, Burnaby Mtn, and Port Moody, BOW is Bowen Island, LANG is area around Langley

Lower band links in coincidentgeography with BC Hydro upper band

BC Hydro All licenseesUpper band transmitters Lower band transmitters

The total capacity – i.e. based on the different channels used by BC Hydro in Vancouver –

that would have to be retuned by BC Hydro ranges from 10 MHz to 80 MHz depending on

the region.

Table 13 – BC Hydro-Vancouver link capacity relative to lower band capacity

10950-11200 11450-11700VAN 3 0 60 235 1*30 MHz, 2*30MHz 118%NVAN 0 1 10 200 1*10MHz 84%COQ 3 7 80 80 3*10MHz , 2*10MHz , 3*30MHz , 2*30MHz 64%BOW 0 0 - 160 N/A 64%LANG 1 0 30 30 1*30MHz 24%Total 7 8Note: VAN refers to core areas of Vancouver - downtown, Surrey, Richmond, Delta, Burnaby


BC Hydro Total MHz capacity of BCHydro links in the

upper bandUpper band transmitters

Total MHz capacity used in the lower

band Channels and MHz capacity to be retuned% fill if all

retuned

Other than in the core area, BC Hydro’s transmitters can “fit” into unused lower band

channels increasing the lower band fill, subject to engineering analysis and coordination with

other licensees. In the core area, moving BC Hydro’s links to the lower band does not appear

to be feasible.

Also, since BC Hydro is the most significant lower band licensee, retuning of upper band

links often implies a need for BC Hydro to coordinate primarily with itself. So while

engineering analysis and coordination with other licensees is of course required it may be

facilitated by the preponderance of BC Hydro itself in the band.


Depending on the application being served by BC Hydro’s links some of the 11 GHz usage

could possibly be displaced into the “smart grid” frequency allotment in the 1.8 GHz range,

although channels in that range are for low-capacity and very low-capacity applications.

There are other licensees covering similar geographic areas to BC Hydro. The second largest

licensee is Terago with 5 links, all of which are in the core area of Vancouver and could

likely be accommodated through terrestrial fibre links.

Table 14 – Vancouver – Terago upper band transmitters relative to all lower band transmitters

10950-11200 11450-11700 10700-10950 11200-11450 BC Hydro Navigata Terago Other NoteVAN 5 5 15 10 2 5 3 4 BCH - Burn, Nav - downtown, Terago - Downtown/Delta/Rich, Astral, RogersNVAN 0 0 2 7 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aCOQ 0 0 3 7 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aBOW 0 0 2 4 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aLANG 0 0 1 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aTotal 5 5 23 28 2 5 3 4Note: VAN refers to core areas of Vancouver - downtown, Surrey, Richmond, Delta, Burnaby


Lower band links in coincidentUpper band transmitters Lower band transmitters geography with BC Hydro upper band

Terago All licensees

Terago’s 10 transmitters use three different channels of 30 MHz each, thus 90 MHz of

available channels would be required in order to re-tune Terago to the lower portion of the

band. Retuning Terago instead of BC Hydro would result in 130% of the lower band being

used even before other technical or coordination considerations.

To avoid congestion in the core area, other bands could be considered to replace BC Hydro’s

(and Terago’s) 11 GHz transmitters. The best alternative band, given the length of BC

Hydro’s links, would be the 6 GHz or 12.7 GHz band options.


Table 15 – BC Hydro-Vancouver 11 GHz link length compared to other bands

10950-11200 11450-11700 6 GHz 12.7 GHz 15 GHz 18 GHz 23 GHzVAN 3 0 13.83 3 1 1 - - NVAN 0 1 14.29 1 - - - - COQ 3 7 9.07 9 5 5 2 2 BOW 0 0 N/A - - - - - LANG 1 0 21.37 - - - - - BC Hydro total 7 8 11.99 13 6 6 2 2 Vancouver total 22 28 11.30 30 167 150 194 278 Note: VAN refers to core areas of Vancouver - downtown, Surrey, Richmond, Delta, Burnaby


Number of transmitters that can be move to another band based on the average link distance of that band in Vancouver

Average distance of BC Hydro links in

the xKu Band

BC HydroUpper band transmitters

Terago’s links are somewhat shorter than those of BC Hydro at 8.5 km. However this would

still be too long for the 18 or 23 GHz bands. Hence Terago’s links could also be considered

for relocation to the 6 GHz or 12.7 GHz bands, subject to availability and coordination with

other licensees.

3.4 Ottawa

Considering a 50 km radius around Ottawa, there are 45 of the 11 GHz transmitters in



Table 16 – Breakdown of 11 GHz transmitters in the Ottawa market

10.70 - 10.95 GHz

10.95 - 11.20 GHz

11.20 - 11.45 GHz

11.45 - 11.70 GHz Total

Rogers 11 1 11 1 24 Bell 2 5 2 5 14 Hydro-Quebec 2 1 2 1 6 RTC - - 1 - 1 Total 15 7 16 7 45 © Lemay-Yates Associates Inc., 2009


Bell Canada is the most significant licensee in the upper band portion of 11 GHz in Ottawa

with over 70% of the transmitters that have been deployed – 10 out of 14, five in the 11.45-

11.7 GHz range and five in the 10.95-11.2 GHz range. Bell’s transmitters in Ottawa are

largely in outlying areas. The geographic breakdown of Bell’s transmitters is shown in the

figure below.

Figure 4 – Bell-Ottawa deployment – geographic breakdown

75 Km

Gatineau and areas of Quebec north of Ottawa (GAT)

(Bell Canada 4 transmitters)

Ottawa River

Ottawa (OTT) - core urban area

(Bell Canada 1 transmitter)

Green Belt

Areas west of Ottawa (WEST) - including Kanata, Sti ttsville,

Richmond(Bell Canada 3 transmitters)

Areas south of the green belt (SOUTH)

(Bell Canada 2 transmitters)

25 Km

20 Km45 Km

18 K

m15

Km

30 K

m

Hwy

416

The distribution of Bell’s transmitters around Ottawa indicates coincident geography with

one of Bell’s own transmitters in the lower band and ten of Rogers’ transmitters.


Table 17 – Ottawa-Bell upper band transmitters relative to all lower band transmitters

10950-11200 11450-11700 10700-10950 11200-11450 Bell Canada Rogers NoteGAT 2 2 6 4 0 1 0 0 Rogers - 1 ChelseaOTT 1 0 6 8 0 6 0 0 Rogers about 6 links downtown and NepeanWEST 1 2 3 3 1 3 0 0 Bell - 1 Stittsville, Rogers - 3 KanataSOUTH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Bell retuneTotal 5 5 15 16 1 10 0 0Note: GAT is Quebec side north of Ottawa, Ottawa is central Ottawa west to Hwy 416, south to green belt

West is Kanata, Stittsville, Richmond, etc., South is south of green belt

Bell Canada All licensees Lower band links in coincidentUpper band transmitters Lower band transmitters geography with Bell Canada upper band

Bell’s deployment uses 5 MHz capacity channels and less, thus they can likely be relatively

easily fit into the lower band, subject to engineering analysis and coordination with other

licensees, as shown below.

Table 18 – Bell-Ottawa link capacity relative to lower band capacity

10950-11200 11450-11700GAT 2 2 5 100 4*5MHz 42%OTT 1 0 3.75 130 1*3.75 MHz 54%WEST 1 2 3.75 115 3*3.75 MHz 48%SOUTH 1 1 3.75 20 2*3.75 MHz 10%Total 5 5Note: GAT is Quebec side north of Ottawa, Ottawa is central Ottawa west to Hwy 416, south to green belt

West is Kanata, Stittsville, Richmond, etc., South is south of green belt

% fill if all retuned

Bell CanadaUpper band transmitters

Total MHz capacity of Bell Canada

links in the upper

Total MHz capacity used in the lower band Channels and MHz capacity to be retuned


4. Case study summary results

The case studies considered 85 transmitters located in the four markets, Toronto, Montreal,

Vancouver, and Ottawa, representing two thirds of the upper band transmitters currently

deployed in those areas.

4.1 Alternatives based on re-tuning

At least 60% of the existing 11 GHz links in the upper band can be retuned to the lower

band, subject to the usual engineering analysis and coordination with other licensees.9

Table 19 – Case study results – re-tuning vs. alternatives

Totalupper band Upper band Upper band Retuned to Need alternatetransmitters licensee transmitters max 80% fill * solution

Toronto 47 Telus 36 23 13Montreal 17 Terago 14 11 3Vancouver (1) 50 BC Hydro 15 10 5Vancouver (2) n/a Terago 10 0 10Ottawa 14 Bell Canada 10 9 1Subtotal 128 n/a 85 53 32

% of case study transmitters 62% 38%* Based on results of case studies, but taking 80% to be more conservative© Lemay-Yates Associates Inc., 2009

Case analyses

Out of the 85 transmitters covered by the four cases, 53 would appear to be eligible for

retuning.

This assumes that the fill in the lower band post re-tuning is at less than 100% keeping room

for some growth – which appears to be continuing into 2009 – and also to be conservative,

9 And considering the links present in the lower band as of December 2008.


leaving open the possibility that on a practical basis some of the links might not be

conducive to retuning due to equipment or other considerations.

This result is also conservative considering that the 11 GHz licensees often make greater

reuse of the same frequency assignments than was assumed for the capacity need assessment.

As was seen for Telus in the GHW area of Toronto, in addition to reusing the same 30 MHz

channel at several locations, it also uses a different 10 MHz channel, making it appear that

40 MHz of spectrum is needed. However the 10 MHz channel in question “overlaps” the

frequencies of the 30 MHz channel. Thus instead of needing one 30 MHz and one 10 MHz

channel, the real use of spectrum is only 30 MHz. Other situations such as this may be

present and thus careful engineering on re-tuning may improve the efficient use of the band

resulting in a greater proportion that can be re-tuned than shown in the above table.10

4.2 Alternatives in other bands based on link distances

Of the 32 transmitters that do not appear to be ready candidates for retuning in the case

studies, there are alternative microwave bands that could be considered.

10 Telus use of frequencies in the GHE area of Toronto is similar, so some reduction in spectrum need is likely there. On the other hand, BC Hydro in Coquitlam uses a mix of channel types, but all on distinct frequencies. More detailed analysis would be required to determine if greater reuse would be possible.


Table 20 – Case study results – Distribution of alternatives

Need alternatesolution 6 GHz 12.7 GHz 18 GHz 23 GHz

Toronto 13 0 6 5 2Montreal 3 0 3 0 0Vancouver (1) 5 4 1 0 0Vancouver (2) 10 0 10 0 0Ottawa 1 0 1 0 0Subtotal 32 4 21 5 2Distribution 13% 66% 16% 6%* and considering highest frequency bands first (excluding 15 GHz due to moratorium)© Lemay-Yates Associates Inc., 2009

Alternate bands - "fit" based on link distance only *Distribution of alternate solutions based on case studies

Based on the “fit” considering link distance only (and starting with the highest frequency

band first), two thirds of the XKu transmitters needing an alternative band would be

candidates for the 12.7 GHz band, assuming that the spectrum utilization policy for that band

is changed as discussed in Telesat’s Comments at Appendix 6, Report of Lemay-Yates

Associates, Section 3.2.2. Some 22% could be accommodated in higher frequency bands,

assuming channels are available.

More generally, many 11 GHz links have hop lengths considerably less than the theoretical

range. The conclusion from the case studies that 88% of the links that would need an

alternative band could be accommodated in higher frequency bands is likely supported in the

general case.

As one example, the following figure shows the distance distribution of Terago’s 11 GHz

XKu links compared to the average deployed distance in 15 GHz, 18 GHz and 23 GHz.


Figure 5 – Terago link distance distribution compared to Canadian averages

-2468

101214161820

Cdn

ave

rage

- 23

GH

z lin

ks

Tera

go M

ontre

al #

1

Tera

go V

anco

uver

#1

Tera

go O

ntar

io #

1

Tera

go V

anco

uver

#2

Tera

go M

ontre

al #

2

Tera

go V

anco

uver

#3

Cdn

ave

rage

- 18

GH

z lin

ks

Tera

go M

ontre

al #

3

Tera

go M

ontre

al #

4

Tera

go V

anco

uver

#4

Tera

go M

ontre

al #

5

Cdn

ave

rage

- 15

GH

z lin

ks

Tera

go T

oron

to #

1

Tera

go M

ontre

al #

6

Tera

go V

anco

uver

#5

Cdn

ave

rage

- 11

GH

z X

Ku

links

Tera

go M

ontre

al #

7

Tera

go T

oron

to #

2

Link

dis

tanc

e (k

m) Candidates for 15 GHz

Candidates for 18 GHz

Based on link distance only, the majority of Terago’s links – likely approximately 12 out of

the total of 15 across Canada – could have been deployed in the 15 GHz or 18 GHz ranges.

4.3 Alternative fibre routes

Another consideration that could relieve the pressure on the use of microwave links for

network backhaul would be to replace microwave with capacity over fibre networks. As

noted in Section 5.4 of the Lemay-Yates Report:

The top three 11 GHz licensees are Rogers, Telus and Bell Canada, all three of which

are incumbents with significant fibre assets.

Rogers also has extensive fibre assets. In addition to that used by Rogers Wireless to

interconnect its wireless network across Canada, Rogers Cable has a “continental”

fibre backbone of 21,000 route-km extending from Vancouver to St. John’s. Rogers


Cable has deployed fibre facilities throughout its cable service areas, in a fibre-to-

the-feeder architecture serving groupings of 350 homes.

Bell Canada has a similar strategy, deploying “fibre-to-the-node” and in some cases

directly to customer premises. Bell Canada also has extensive national backbone

fibre facilities, including coverage of Western Canada.

In its core operating areas, Bell has been heavily “fibreed” for many years. For

example, in the largest urban area in the country – the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) –

Bell’s extensive fibre deployment is used to promote the competitiveness of locating

businesses in the Toronto area, since: “All Bell Canada switching centers use fibre to

communicate with each other. Bell has installed fibre under most major Metro

Toronto roads and installs fibre entrance cables in new buildings requiring 300 or

more phone lines.”

Similarly Telus has a national fibre backbone as well as presence in major cities

including those in Eastern Canada.

While only Rogers, Telus and Bell Canada would know exactly where their own

fibre passes relative to the 11 GHz links that they have deployed, it is clear that they

are in a good position to consider self-supply via fibre rather than using microwave

links for their backhaul needs.

As one example, in the Vancouver area, Bell Canada in 2006 installed a 120-km cable

between North Vancouver and Whistler. The cable has 144 fibre strands.11 A number of 11

GHz licensees have links that also follow this route, as shown below.

11 BCE press release, July 6, 2006


Figure 6 – Vancouver area – XKu links in parallel with fibre

XKu links Fibre routeXKu links Fibre route

While this is a route that is more heavily “advertised” due to the 2010 Olympic Games to

take place in Whistler, it is surely not the only case in Canada. Many routes across the

country have been forborne from regulation by the CRTC due to the presence of alternative

facilities-based providers so many of these cases likely exist. Thus in many parts of the

country, leased point-to-point capacity should be available for licensees as an alternative to

use of 11 GHz links.

In one case, Rogers does not even appear to consider fibre availability from alternative

suppliers, but would only use fibre if available from Rogers Cable.12 This narrow view of

alternative facilities may also be contributing to over use of 11 GHz links in areas where

non-Rogers sources of capacity are available.

12 Rogers comments, page 4… microwave is the alternative for connecting wireless basestations “outside the footprint of Rogers’ Cable network”.


5. Fixed microwave service bands – Canada compared to the US

As a separate matter, in their comments the Joint FS users suggest that Industry Canada

should harmonize the use of the 11 GHz band with the US, which would imply among other

things keeping the entire range open for licensing for FS applications.

It should however be kept in mind that the US is a much larger market, with more licensees

vying for spectrum assets and in fact with fewer bands available for “carrier” applications.

Canadian FS users have access to considerably more alternative spectrum in the desirably

“mid-range” frequency bands than the much larger U.S. FS user community.

The following table provides an overview of bands >3 GHz that have allocations for fixed

microwave service, comparing Canada and the US.13

13 “Allocated capacity” means only the total that is represented by the band allocation. Specific licensing policies or utilization may limit available capacity – e.g. VHCM use in the 13 GHz band.


Table 21 – US vs. Canada allocation of FS by band

Range Bands >3 GHz Lower MHz

Upper MHz

Lower MHz Upper MHz

4 GHz 3700 4200 500 3700 4200 500Lower 6 GHz 5925 6425 500 5925 6425 500Upper 6 GHz 6525 6875 350 6425 6930 5057 GHz n/a n/a n/a 7125 7725 6008 GHz n/a n/a n/a 7725 8275 55010 GHz 10550 10680 130 10550 10680 13011 GHz (Note 1) 10700 11700 1000 10700 11200 50013 GHz 12700 13250 550 12700 13250 55015 GHz (Note 2) n/a n/a n/a 14500 14660 160

n/a n/a n/a 14820 15135 315n/a n/a n/a 15295 15350 55

18 GHz 17700 18300 600 17800 18300 50019300 19700 400 19300 19700 400

23 GHz 21200 23600 2400 21200 23600 240024 GHz 24250 25250 1000 24250 24450 200

25050 25250 20028 GHz (Note 3) 27500 28350 850 25350 28350 3000

29100 29250 150 29100 29250 15031 GHz 31000 31300 30038 GHz 38600 40000 1400 38600 40000 1400

Allocated capacity 10130 MHz Allocated capacity 12615 MHzCanada relative to US 125%

Notes:1. Canada - net of XKu portion as proposed in DGTP-003-082. Canada - net of changes proposed by Industry Canada in DGTP-004-083. Currently allocated in Canada and US for multipoint (LMDS) - not being used4. US per FCC CFR Part 101, 2008, Canada per SP2-20 and SRSP's5. All bands may be subject to limitations based on licensing policies, sharing and utilization by other services (satellite, MCS, broadcast)per Lemay-Yates Associates Inc., 2009

Upper range

Mid-range

US Common Carrier Microwave bands Canada FS alloactions in fixed bands

35% in mid range

65% in upper range

Allocated capacity Allocated capacity

30% in mid range

70% in upper range

Total

Overall, there is 25% more capacity potentially available for fixed service in Canada than

there is in the US. This appears to be due to less Canadian government and military usage of

spectrum in the 7 GHz, 8 GHz and 15 GHz ranges compared to the US. 35% of the allocated

capacity in Canada is “mid range” spectrum (below 18 GHz) compared to 30% in the US.

Upper range spectrum is more difficult to use since link distances are short and propagation

is also more susceptible to rain fading and other interference considerations.


6. Conclusions

Based on the case analyses, the majority – over 60% – of the XKu links deployed could be

retuned to the lower portion of the 11 GHz range.14 This would leave some room for growth

in the lower band, but more importantly alternative band options are also available. Based on

deployed hop distance many of the 11 GHz links would “fit” into higher frequency bands,

notably the 15 GHz, 18 GHz and 23 GHz ranges.

And as an alternative band to these, as concluded in the Lemay-Yates Report:

One notable opportunity would appear to be the 12.7 GHz range, which has similar

propagation characteristics and total capacity. There would have to be a change to the

Industry Canada policy and band plan for the 12.7 GHz range to facilitate this,

notably to re-channelize it to provide for similar channel size and frequency spacing

to the 11 GHz range.

Microwave alternatives thus exist to accommodate all of the links in the XKu range.

The fact that many links can fit into higher frequency bands may also point to a level of

inefficiency in the way the 11 GHz band is being managed. In particular, many of the 11

GHz applications are for short haul, high capacity links. These applications should be

accommodated in higher frequency bands that are specifically set out for this, consistent with

Industry Canada policies and subject to channel availability. In this way the various bands

are more optimally used, not being blocked by less appropriate applications. This approach

for example is applied by Industry Canada in “reserving” the 4 GHz and lower 6 GHz ranges

for long haul applications.

14 Considering the level of deployment derived from Industry Canada TAFL data as of December 2008.


Also, channel assignment within the band may not be efficient. Industry Canada appears to

be assigning the same channel to licensees throughout broad geographic areas. This means

that channel assignments could be scattered throughout the band, effectively occupying more

spectrum resources than needed. The fact that the case analysis indicates many links can be

retuned to the lower portion of the band tends to confirm this inefficiency in assignment.

Overall Canadian licensees have considerable spectrum resources available to them.

Although the US has retained the entire 11 GHz range for FS applications, the US market is

much larger, with more licensees vying for spectrum assets and in fact with fewer bands

available for “carrier” applications. Canadian FS users have access to considerably more

alternative spectrum in the desirably “mid-range” frequency bands than the much larger U.S.

FS user community.

Adding to that, in many cases fibre facilities could be available serving the same locations as

served by the existing XKu links. As also concluded in the Lemay-Yates Report:

Fiber alternatives should also be available, largely via self-supply. The incumbent

mobile carriers – Rogers, Telus and Bell Canada – are the largest licensees of 11

GHz transmitters, and also the largest owners of fiber cable facilities both in access

as well as backbone networks across the country.

Appendix 2 Advantech Letter

Reply Comments on Gazette Notice DGTP-003-08...there are good alternatives available for these FS...

Documents

Transcript of Reply Comments on Gazette Notice DGTP-003-08...there are good alternatives available for these FS...