|
||||||||||||||||
Press Briefing with AMBASSADOR RUSSELL: Thank you so much for joining me here this early afternoon. Let me give a very quick background just on what the World Radiocommunication Conference is and then say a few words about the outcome of the first plenary meeting, which I just came from and which is just ending. The first plenary meeting has gone very well, so we’re very pleased with that. The World Radiocommunication Conference occurs roughly every four years. The purpose of it is to review and revise the treaty that governs the use of spectrum globally. That includes both terrestrial and satellite spectrum. Obviously, as a general rule what is most important is looking at the implications of the use of technology, both space technology and ground-based technology that implicates border areas in particular. The whole point of having an international organization to review spectrum policy is to make sure that you don’t have harmful interference, but in addition to ensuring that you avoid harmful interference or that people’s individual systems can work, you also can create some very significant synergies, which reduce the cost of technology and promote the rapid deployment of new technologies and services. And that is one of the main themes of this year’s conference, the 2007 World Radiocommunication Conference. Today was our first official meeting. The conference lasts for a month and I will be here the entire month. At today’s meeting we appointed -- or agreed to by acclamation -- a chairman for the conference. The chairman will be Francois Rancy from France. He was universally supported by everyone, including myself and the U.S. delegation. He became chairman through the good work of the ITU and specifically the Secretary General, Dr. Touré, who managed to achieve consensus where there was none two days ago. And now we have a chairman who has the full consensus support of everyone. So I think it’s a real testament to the fine work of both the ITU and specifically the Secretary General to steer the conference to a very fruitful beginning with no acrimony at all, and a real consensus process with a consensus chairman. So I think everyone is pleased with that. Obviously, picking the chairman is only the first step. What we’re really here to do is discuss spectrum policy issues and satellite policy issues. In particular I think there are really two defining issues of this conference. One is trying to identify which spectrum bands -- which areas in the spectrum -- are going to be used for advanced wireless systems. Really, mobile wireless broadband is what the most likely application will be. That service or suite of services --, it’s many different services and many different technologies -- is called IMT or International Mobile Telecommunications, by the ITU. And so you’ll see throughout the documents a discussion of which bands we should identify globally for IMT. So what that means, again, is that we’re trying to identify bands where all countries can roll out advanced wireless services, and really wireless mobile broadband. That is a major issue and will be discussed at length. It’s a major issue to the U.S.. We’re particularly interested in it, and we’re particularly interested in trying to get what we call the 700 megahertz (MHz) band. But it’s probably easiest to remember that spectrum as the TV bands that are going to become available as we move from analog to digital television. We’re trying to get those bands identified. The idea there is that all countries, at some point in the future, are going to move to digital television. The move from analog to digital frees up spectrum. Digital is much more efficient. This additional spectrum is very prime spectrum. It’s prime “real estate” because TV signals obviously penetrate walls and windows. It’s excellent spectrum to use for all sorts of different applications. These TV bands will become available at some point in the future around the world, and we’re suggesting that irrespective of when individual countries are actually going to make the move from analog to digital, if we identify the TV bands now, specifically the 700 band, we will be ready when that transition occurs with more new technologies, more new services, and at a lower price. Because the bigger the market, the more economies of scale you get, and the more services you’ll get and the lower the price. So that’s where we are very hopeful we can get some agreement to accomplish that goal. In addition, the U.S. cares also very deeply about ensuring that certain other bands, specifically bands that are heavily used by satellites, both by the U.S. and in the developing world, are not identified because we are concerned that it would cause harmful interference. These bands are commonly known as the C band. It’s a satellite band, satellite C band. If you want to actually know the band range, it’s 3.4 gigahertz (GHz) to 4.2 (GHz). C band satellites generally can cover very large areas of the world, so they’re particularly useful in the developing world but they’re also heavily used in the U.S., so we don’t want those bands to be identified. The other issue that is going to be really critical deals with satellite interference and the roll-out of, in the case of the U.S., WiMAX mobile broadband in the 2.5 gigahertz range. That issue is going to be identified as agenda item 1.9 in the WRC, so if you’re covering these issues you will see the term 1.9 thrown around a lot. What that deals with is the fact that many nations are rolling out advanced wireless terrestrial services in the 2.5 gigahertz band, including in the U.S. where we’re rolling out WiMAX. We have concerns that we could have satellite interference unless new rules are put into place. So we’re working very hard to get new rules -- new limits for satellites -- into place in that specific band to ensure there isn’t interference and that the roll-out will go as quickly as possible, because we think these are important new services. With that, obviously there are a host of other issues. There are 29 separate agenda items each one has many parts, and thousands of documents have been submitted, so there are a lot of individual issues that can be covered, but I just wanted to give you the highlights of some of the really top-level issues that we’ll be dealing with and that are defining to the conference. With that, I’d love to throw it open for questions. QUESTION: When you say 1.9, trying to get new rules on satellites for -- RUSSELL: New limits. And the technical term is PFDs, but essentially you’re limiting the power so that you don’t have harmful interference. In the case of the U.S. the question is over-the-horizon interference -- i.e., you have a satellite which isn’t actually over the U.S. because those kind of satellites would not be licensed over the U.S., but you have a satellite somewhere else in the world and in this case the WiMAX towers can actually see it over the horizon and that causes a degree of interference. What interference does, is it causes the service to drop customers or not have as clear a signal, or it slows down the speed. So it harms the service that’s being provided. QUESTION: Just a quick explanation of a technical, I assume it’s a technical term you’re using, to “identify” a band. What do you mean by that? When you do not want a band to be identified and you don’t want it used for certain uses. RUSSELL: Within the construct of the ITU and the work in the treaty, there are two different things you can do. One is you can allocate a band to types of service, like mobile wireless. In this WRC and previous WRCs, they’ve also added an identification. That essentially means identifying a suite of technologies. In this case the suite is IMT, a category that WiMAX was added to at the Radio Assembly last week. That was one of the big topics of debate, whether WiMAX would be part of IMT, and it was added. For this suite of technologies, what the treaty in this case is saying is that it is the judgment of the global group, in this case the WRC, that those bands are ideally suited for use of those technologies. It doesn’t require that you use those technologies, but it suggests that they’re ideally suited so it identifies those bands specifically for those technologies. Individual countries will make individual decisions on whether or not they eventually roll those bands out, but generally speaking most countries actually follow those designations and from a market perspective, and this is where you get economies of scale, it also tells industry that this is a good band to design your technology for. It makes a big difference what kinds of bands you’re designing for. QUESTION: You said there was a band you do not want identified. By that -- RUSSELL: By that I am referring to a certain band of spectrum – spectrum can be segmented into bands. What we call the C band, 3.4 to 4.2 gigahertz, is currently used by C band satellites. We’re saying that we don’t want that band to be identified as a good band to roll out mobile terrestrial wireless because it would conflict with the existing use which is satellite. QUESTION: Can you explain what controversy there is? Is it because on the first issue, for example, the 700 megahertz band, is the problem that there are some countries using a different band and they want that to be adopted as the international standard? Or is there some other problem with it? Why is it controversial? RUSSELL: The reason it’s controversial is that not all countries are moving to digital television at the same rate. Certainly every nation that I’ve met with is planning on moving to digital TV at some point, because it makes so much sense – you get better picture quality, you use less spectrum, it gives you a lot more flexibility. That rate varies tremendously. So, for example, the U.S. will switch over entirely to digital in February 2009, so analog TVs will no longer work. Other nations may not be switching over entirely until 2020. So the issue is, in some administrations’ minds, should we do this now or should we wait? QUESTION: But the spectrum, the 700 megahertz band, is already full with analog TV? RUSSELL: Yes, absolutely. QUESTION: So that might be [inaudible]. RUSSELL: Or they may want to wait longer, to identify it later. And what we’re suggesting is there’s no harm in identifying it now. As a matter of fact there’s a net positive in identifying it now, even if you’re not going to fully transition until, let’s say 2020. A lot of countries, as the U.S. did, will have both analog and digital broadcasting operating at the same time. But at some point almost all countries will turn off their analog signal and just have digital. Even if you’re not going to do that for many years, if through the WRC the 700 band is identified now, then more technology companies will be building more technologies and more services will be developed for that band so that when you do transition it will be available and ready for you. So in effect, you’re benefiting from the consumers of the countries that have transitioned before you. But that’s really the center of the debate, and really it focuses around when different countries are going to make the transition, but almost all of them are going to transition. QUESTION: So [it’s a problem] because other countries are not using the same band? RUSSELL: Oh, you mean the C band? QUESTION: Yes. RUSSELL: Yes, individual nations tend to favor the services that they use heavily. If you look at users of different types of services, the U.S. is a heavy user both of terrestrial and satellite services. Certain other parts of the world tend to be more heavily inclined to use strictly satellites. Others are more terrestrial dependent. Usually that’s based on the density of the population. Where you have high density, terrestrial generally is extremely economic. Where you have low density, satellite services can be quite economic. The U.S. has both, so we use both services. But I think if you look around the world where you have high densities, typically you see more interest in terrestrial; where you have low densities and big geographic areas you frequently see a lot of interest in satellites. QUESTION: A question on the mobile TV. On the digitalization, what do you recommend for the countries that they would still wait to change from the analog to digital? What is your recommendation? RUSSELL: From our perspective, we actually think you can divorce the two issues. The date of the change, the date of moving from analog to digital, we think can be divorced from the question before the WRC this month, which is : Are we going to use these bands once they’re freed up for IMT? So our argument is that since everyone eventually is going to (as far as we’re aware) migrate to digital, why don’t we go ahead and identify it now so that technology companies can have a jump start on developing as many new technologies and services as possible for these bands. And then as countries transition at their own pace, those technologies and services will be available. QUESTION: When do you expect the first decisions to be taken? Since the conference takes a month, shall we wait for the last day -- RUSSELL: Historically there is no question that most of the most difficult issues are resolved in the last week. That being said, the Secretary General made a plea to all of us this morning to start having our night meetings this week, as opposed to in two weeks; and there seems to be a real no-nonsense approach to trying to get as much work done up front. So we’ll see. But as with all negotiations, invariably with difficult subjects, oftentimes they will come down to the last week. Hopefully we can make some progress at least in the first few weeks, and we’re hoping for that. QUESTION: I wondered if you could help me understand what you see as the risks again for delaying the decision on the digital TV, identifying those bandwidths. RUSSELL: Sure. QUESTION: And also I want to make sure I understand what it means to identify spectrum. Does it actually mean that if a country that doesn’t have that identification --, that it has all analog TV, would they actually change something if they -- RUSSELL: No. Two parts to that. You’re covering the U.S.? Do you want me to answer U.S.-specific in terms of -- QUESTION: No, do the world. RUSSELL: From the standpoint of countries that are transitioning now -- and the U.S. is one of them -- there is a substantial benefit to having a global identification because it expands the market size. So again, the technologies and services that will be available in the U.S. and other nations that are rolling out in the next five-year window, let’s say -- and when I say rolling out what I mean is transitioning fully to digital and making the spectrum available -- those technologies will be more robust and they will be cheaper and they will be more available. So that is the big benefit to the consumer. That’s why doing it now is helpful to all countries that are planning on switching over to digital in the next five year window. That being said, for even those countries that have a longer time horizon on the switchover, there is no harm for technology companies to start developing new technologies and services at this stage because certainly they’ll be improved upon. So when those countries transition they should see the benefits themselves as well, again, with better technologies, more services, more competition, and cheaper prices. So that’s the benefit. In terms of what the requirement is, with identification the requirement is not that you immediately, therefore, need to switch to IMT, i.e. switch from broadcast television to a mobile wireless system, in this case probably mobile wireless broadband. What it means is that once you free up that spectrum and you’re looking for what you should do with it, you have a recommendation from this world body, which is the leading expert on how to use spectrum, saying this band really should be used for IMT. So it carries a huge amount of weight with most countries. So when the decision is being made, so you’ve now switched from analog to digital, you freed up the spectrum, and different countries do different things. Some of them like the U.S. auction that spectrum, other countries determine on their own how the spectrum should be allocated. But one of the first questions is, what’s it going to be used for? With a WRC decision that identifies it for IMT, most countries would then think that is a good reason to use that band for IMT. QUESTION: But I don’t really know what it means to free up spectrum. RUSSELL: Okay. Free up spectrum means that you – When you’re broadcasting in analog and digital it takes a certain amount of spectrum. Spectrum is actually a thing, it’s a wave, and you can’t have two of them in the same place at the same time because they’ll interfere with each other. So it takes up an amount of space, shall we say. When you stop broadcasting in analog and only broadcast in digital, that space is freed up and you can use it for something else. So in this case the reason you actually gain spectrum is that digital is much more efficient than analog, i.e. it takes much less spectrum if you’re broadcasting in digital than it takes in analog. QUESTION: How much less? RUSSELL: It’s about one-sixth. You can broadcast about six channels in digital in the space that you can broadcast a single channel in analog. I caution, the one thing is, it varies. You can dramatically increase the resolution so you can broadcast high definition instead of six channels, for example. QUESTION: How much for HDTV?. RUSSELL: Generally speaking, you can broadcast in high definition and have spectrum to spare compared to a single analog channel. So you can broadcast in extremely high definition and still have spectrum left over, or you can broadcast six separate channels in the space that you broadcast a single channel in analog. QUESTION: I was wondering if you could elaborate, what do you think is the market value in freeing up the spectrum space in the market economies where you auction it like the U.S. or Western Europe? RUSSELL: We’re about to have an absolute answer to that question because our auction is taking place next year. The guesstimate is in the $10 billion to $15 billion range, but we will see. QUESTION: Just for the U.S.? RUSSELL: Just for the U.S. And that’s actually not even all the spectrum. Part of the spectrum has been reserved for first responders -- for firefighters, police officers. So it’s extremely valuable spectrum, I think is a fair assessment. And by the way, those estimates generally have not proven to be particularly accurate. Usually they end up being underestimates, but we’ll have to see. QUESTION: Can you elaborate a little bit on the satellites should not interfere with the terrestrial. What is the problem there? RUSSELL: The problem is, satellites are sitting way up high in the sky, and you have a terrestrial system. Even if the satellite is, for example, over a different continent, the terrestrial tower can actually see the emissions from the satellite, which are being beamed down and that will interfere with or could interfere with, at the right power levels, with the terrestrial tower. So what you need to do is you need to make sure you have the correct power limitations or limitations on how the satellite is broadcasting, in effect, to ensure there isn’t interference with terrestrial systems. VOICE: I’m afraid we have to keep the Ambassador on his schedule. RUSSELL: But I am around for a month, so -- [Laughter]. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. # # # #
|